in Re Kia Motors America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding statement that “work this year [will] pay off” too vague to serve as an enforceable promise
• rejecting promissory estoppel claim where evidence failed to support finding that \'promise' in the contractual sense had been made\
• any reliance by people experienced in business on bank’s oral statement regarding loan was unreasonable as matter of law
• No promise in a contractual sense where oral promise of loan conflicted with parties’ understanding that written agreement would govern the intricacies of their deal.
• “The clear implication of our decision in [Loranger] is that an action based on reliance is equivalent to a contract action”
• promissory estoppel action ‘‘is equivalent to a contract action, and the party bringing such an action must prove all the necessary elements of a contract other than consideration’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).