Restatement (Second) Of Contracts § 90

46 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hosp., Inc.
  190 So. 2d 777· Fla.· 1966-09-28 ·cited 97×
  The Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of an oral contract for services not to be performed within one year, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel will not be adopted to override this statutory requirement, as such adoption would be a judicial intrusion on legislative prerogati
• W.R. Grace & Co. v. Geodata Servs., Inc.
  547 So. 2d 919· Fla.· 1989-07-06 ·cited 85×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed an award of $433,000 in compensatory damages to Geodata Services, holding that neither breach of contract nor promissory estoppel supported the judgment. The Court clarified that promissory estoppel requires definite, substantial, and clearly co
• Landro v. Glendenning Motorways, Inc.
  625 F.2d 1344· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 72×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in finding the pension plan ambiguous and suggests promissory estoppel as an alternative basis for relief.
• The Chedd-Angier Prod. Co., Inc. v. Omni Publ'ns Int'l, Ltd.
  756 F.2d 930· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-15 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the denial of motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings of an oral contract and breach, and that the district court did not err in its rulings or jury instru
• DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC
  112 So. 3d 85· Fla.· 2013-03-28 ·cited 43×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that promissory estoppel cannot be used as an exception to the Statute of Frauds, overturning a Fourth District decision that enforced an oral modification to a real estate purchase contract. The Court reaffirmed its long-standing precedent from Tan
• Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc. v. Liberty Cnty.
  406 So. 2d 461· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-03-10 ·cited 43×
  Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete appeals the dismissal of its complaint challenging Liberty County's award of a road resurfacing contract to Gulf Asphalt, which submitted a non-conforming bid by failing to bid on one of two required alternative specifications. The court reverses, hold
• Santoni v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  677 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the alleged promises made by the FDIC were too indefinite to support a claim of promissory estoppel, and that the appellants' action sounded in tort and was barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Rigoberto Acosta v. The Dist. Bd. OF Trs. OF Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll.
  905 So. 2d 226· Fla. 3d DCA· 2005-05-25 ·cited 23×
  No enforceable contract existed because the college never promised the students any definite tuition price, and the students' decision to proceed with and complete the program after learning of the increase constituted acquiescence to the higher tuition. Price is an essential ele
• Advanced Mktg. Sys. Corp. & Douglas Pierce v. ZK Yacht Sales & Alan Charlap
  830 So. 2d 924· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-11-20 ·cited 22×
  Advanced Marketing and Douglas Pierce sought recovery of a $90,000 rebate on a yacht brokerage commission based on alleged oral agreements and a handwritten offer, while ZK Yacht Sales and Alan Charlap counterclaimed for payment of goods and services provided. The appellate court
• Rennie & Laughlin, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.
  242 F.2d 208· 9th Cir.· 1957-03-08 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, as the plaintiff could not establish waiver or promissory estoppel based on the alleged facts.
• Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Stephenson
  217 F.2d 295· 9th Cir.· 1954-11-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Alaska statute of frauds applied, and an exception for promissory estoppel, as outlined in the Restatement of Contracts, could prevent the statute from barring enforcement of the oral employment agreement.
• United States v. Kingsley
  851 F.2d 16· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the government's actions, particularly the court order to place seized assets in an interest-bearing account and the defendant's reasonable reliance on this, created a contractual obligation to pay interest on the liquidated assets.
• DOE v. Univision Television Grp., Inc.
  717 So. 2d 63· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-06-10 ·cited 15×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted on the invasion of privacy claim and that claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel should be reinstated.
• Hospice OF Metro Denver, Inc. v. Grp. Health Ins. OF Okla., Inc.
  944 F.2d 752· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 13×
  A third-party healthcare provider's state law promissory estoppel claim against an ERISA plan insurer, based on oral assurances of coverage, is not preempted by ERISA if it does not affect the plan's administration or the rights of participants/beneficiaries.
• Preload Tech., Inc. v. A.B. & J. Constr. Co., Inc.
  696 F.2d 1080· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-27 ·cited 12×
  A subcontractor who submits a bid that a general contractor relies upon in submitting its own bid is bound by that offer, even if a formal contract is not yet executed, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
• Debron Corp. v. Nat'l Homes Constr. Corp.
  493 F.2d 352· 8th Cir.· 1974-03-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to construction contracts and that Debron presented sufficient evidence of a promise, reliance, and resulting injustice to reinstate the jury's verdict.
• 21 Turtle Creek Square, Ltd. v. NEW York State Teachers' Ret. Sys.
  432 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-22 ·cited 12×
  Promissory estoppel under § 90 is not applicable when the Statute of Frauds is involved unless there is a promise to reduce the agreement to writing.
• Robert Gordon, Inc. v. Ingersollrand Co.
  117 F.2d 654· 7th Cir.· 1941-02-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the letter from Ingersoll-Rand was not an offer to sell machinery, and therefore no contract was formed. The court also found that promissory estoppel did not apply due to a lack of justifiable reliance and irreparable detriment.
• White Constr. Co. v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
  633 F. Supp. 2d 1302· M.D. Fla.· 2009-04-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted in part and denied in part, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding certain claims.
• Coral Reef Drive Land Dev., LLC v. Duke Realty Ltd. P'ship
  45 So. 3d 897· Fla. 3d DCA· 2010-09-22 ·cited 10×
  Coral Reef Drive Land Development appeals a summary judgment and foreclosure judgment entered in favor of Duke Realty Limited Partnership. The court affirms, holding that alleged oral agreements to exercise a purchase option and modify loan terms were not binding and failed to sa
• Richards Constr. Co. v. AIR Conditioning Co. OF Haw.
  318 F.2d 410· 9th Cir.· 1963-05-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a subsequent contract settling a genuine dispute over the existence and terms of an initial agreement is supported by valid consideration, even if one party's initial promise was arguably based on a mistake.
• Mahoney v. Del. McDonald's Corp.
  770 F.2d 123· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the magistrate did not err in finding liability under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, but remanded for reconsideration of damages.
• Universal Computer Sys., Inc. v. Med. Servs. Assn. OF PA.
  628 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 8×
  A principal is bound by an employee's promise if the employee possesses apparent authority and the promisee relies on it to their detriment, even if the employee lacked actual authority.
• Local 1330 v. United States Steel Corp.
  631 F.2d 1264· 6th Cir.· 1980-07-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that there was no legal basis to compel United States Steel Corporation to continue operating its Youngstown plants, as no contract or enforceable promise existed and the company had the right to cease unprofitable operations.
• Boomer v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  409 F.2d 382· 7th Cir.· 1969-04-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish justifiable reliance, a necessary element of promissory estoppel, based on his own contradictory statements.
• Esquire Radio & Elecs., Inc. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
  804 F.2d 787· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that promissory estoppel applied to the spare parts claims, the amendment of the accounts receivable award was proper, but pre-judgment interest should accrue from an intermediate date, not the date of repudiation.
• Vencor Hosps. S., Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of R.I.
  86 F. Supp. 2d 1155· S.D. Fla.· 2000-03-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Outline of Coverage is not part of the insurance contract and that 'health care expenses' refers to the costs of treatment, not the types of treatment. Promissory estoppel claims also failed.
• Montgomery Indus. Int'l, Inc. v. Thomas Constr. Co.
  620 F.2d 91· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-26 ·cited 6×
  A subcontractor's bid offer to a general contractor, made with knowledge of expected reliance and inducing such reliance, is binding unless it is clearly shown to be non-final.
• Jack D. GAY for S'holders of Nw. Uranium Mines, Inc. v. The United States
  356 F.2d 516· Ct. Cl.· 1966-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a contract, either unilateral or bilateral, with the Atomic Energy Commission for the purchase of uranium ore or concentrate.
• Lozano v. Marriott Corp.
  844 F. Supp. 740· M.D. Fla.· 1994-02-28 ·cited 4×
  Summary judgment is granted for the employer because the employee's contract was for an indefinite duration, making it terminable at-will, and the employee handbook did not create a contract for definite employment.
• Blake v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  697 F.2d 473· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a taxpayer's transfer of appreciated stock to a charity, with an understanding that the charity would use the proceeds to purchase an asset from the taxpayer, is recharacterized for tax purposes as a sale of the stock by the taxpayer followed by a contribution
• Reamer v. The United States
  532 F.2d 349· 4th Cir.· 1976-01-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the enlistment contract's delay term was not binding because it was not authorized or directed by the Department of the Army.
• Westmoreland Manganese Corp. v. United States
  246 F.2d 351· 8th Cir.· 1957-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amendment to the contract was supported by valid consideration, authorizing the foreclosure of the mortgages.
• Revlon Grp. Inc. v. LJS Realty, Inc.
  579 So. 2d 365· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-05-15 ·cited 3×
  The court held that because A&P's written consent was a precondition to the assignment of the sublease, no valid contract existed between Revlon and US, but US was liable for unjust enrichment and entitled to compensation for improvements under promissory estoppel.
• Bower v. AT & T Techs., Inc.
  852 F.2d 361· 8th Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 2×
  Appellants can recover damages sustained in reasonable detrimental reliance on an unfulfilled promise of future at-will employment, even if the promise itself is not fully enforceable as a contract.
• Trifiro v. NEW York Life Ins. Co.
  845 F.2d 30· 1st Cir.· 1988-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's reliance on an oral statement was unreasonable as a matter of law, precluding claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A.
• LAW Mathematics & Tech., Inc. v. The United States
  779 F.2d 675· Fed. Cir.· 1985-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Navy was not estopped from enforcing the Limitation of Funds clause, as the contractor failed to prove a clear promise of additional funding or reasonable detrimental reliance.
• Bethlehem Fabricators, Inc. v. British Overseas Airways Corp.
  434 F.2d 840· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the owner, through its architect, made a binding promise to require a payment bond, and its subsequent decision not to require the bond constituted a breach of contract for which the subcontractor could recover damages.
• Byerly v. Duke Power Co.
  217 F.2d 803· 4th Cir.· 1954-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the company's promise to pay employees a sum equal to their vacation pay, sick leave, and retirement benefits was supported by sufficient consideration.
• John Price Assocs., Inc. v. Warner Elec., Inc.
  723 F.2d 755· 10th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that promissory estoppel barred the defendant subcontractor from withdrawing its bid, and the trial court properly awarded damages.
• Shadek v. Kidd
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-29
  The court recommended granting in part Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, finding that Plaintiff adequately pleaded claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement, and recommending an award of damages and attorney's fees.
• Gilfus v. McNally Cap., LLC.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-12
  Arthur Gilfus sued McNally Capital for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment arising from McNally's use of confidential business information about a Nortrax equipment dealership opportunity that Gilfus had shared. The court grant
• Seale v. Citizens Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  806 F.2d 99· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-26
  The court held that Ohio law does not recognize promissory estoppel to enforce oral real estate agreements barred by the statute of frauds, and that there was insufficient evidence of fraud by the defendant corporation.
• Garcia v. VON Micsky
  602 F.2d 51· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-17
  The court held that a doctor's post-surgery statement to a patient, made after the contractual relationship had ended, was not a warranty, but rather therapeutic reassurance.
• Melburn E. Broxson v. Chicago
  446 F.2d 628· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13
  The court held that a landlord's oral promise to repair a specific elevator defect, upon which the tenant reasonably relied by forbearing to make repairs itself, could be enforced under promissory estoppel, and that the landlord's indemnification claim against the tenant was not
• Pitts v. McGRAW-Edison Co.
  329 F.2d 412· 6th Cir.· 1964-03-25
  The court held that the voluntary payments made by the defendant to the plaintiff after his retirement were gratuities without consideration and were terminable at will.