William O. Walker and Z of San Diego, Ltd., and Cross-Appellees v. Kfc Corporation and Heublein, Inc., and Cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that their acts in reliance of the alleged promises were not bargained for because the plaintiffs’ claim of reliance was founded on the very acts which induced the defendant to enter into the written agreements
• applying California law, which is 23 substantially identical to Nevada law
• where parties entered into leases and spent valuable time and money in establishing and developing property, benefits obviously flowed to franchisor and promissory estoppel argument was inapplicable
• “There is no indication in the Franchise Investment Law that the Legislature intended, however, to impose a fiduciary duty on franchisors.”
• where parties entered into leases and spent valuable time and money in establishing and developing property, benefits obviously flowed to franchisor and promissory estoppel argument was inapplicable
• “Promissory estoppel is not a doctrine designed to give a party to a 12 negotiated commercial bargain a second bite at the apple in the event it fails to prove a 13 breach of contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).