McDabco, Inc. v. Chet Adams Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding a cause of action “styled breach of contract” could not be used “to properly allege an affirmative claim for relief based on promissory estoppel”
• holding a cause of action “styled breach of contract” could not be used “to properly allege an affirmative claim for relief based on promissory estoppel”
• it is a `well accepted doctrine that one cannot circumvent the Statute of Frauds by bringing an action in tort, when the tort action is based primarily on the unenforceable contract'
• \The [South Carolina] legislature has provided that the only exceptions to the requirements of a written contract of sale are provided in Sections 36-2-201(2) and (3). Promissory estoppel is not included within these subsections.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).