Mike Doll, Ronald Elbon and Kent Langworthy v. Grand Union Company

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a “court surely would not infer consent to an unsigned agreement when the parties clearly predicated a binding agreement only on the actual execution of the contract”
• noting that “the doctrine of promissory estoppel . . . was designed specifically to address cases where the plaintiff has no legally enforceable rights but has suffered a loss due to reliance on the defendant’s promises”
• affirming summary judgment for defendant on promissory estoppel claim where defendant had given “repeated caveats that it did not intend to be bound until a final lease agreement was signed”
• “When [] indications of intent are absent or are explicitly disavowed, however, the justification for enforcing the proposed lease is wholly absent.”
• actions taken in reliance on letter of intent as well as oral expressions of intent to complete transaction, did not make letter binding and enforceable where parties expressed clear intent not to be bound absent formal written document
• discussing the equitable defense of promissory estoppel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).