Dynalectric Co. of Nevada, Inc. v. Clark & Sullivan Constructors, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• following the Restatement (Second) of Contracts in holding that a court may award expectation, reliance, or restitutionary damages for promissory estoppel claims
• upholding an award of $2.5 million on a contractor’s promissory estoppel claim against a subcontractor that refused to honor its sub-bid and enter into a subcontract
• reviewing de novo a party's eligibility to recover a type of damages
• “[U]nder the Restatement, an award of expectation damages is often an appropriate remedy for promissory[-]estoppel claims.”
• “Although the doctrine of promissory estoppel is conceptually distinct from traditional contract principles, there is no rational reason for distinguishing the two situations in terms of the damages that may be recovered.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).