promissory estoppel doctrine in Maine

2023Harvey, 2008 ME 192 , ,r 11, 962 A.2d 322 ; Cottle Enters., 1997 ME 78 , ,r 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330 ; Daigle Commercial Group, Inc., 1999 ME 107 , ,r 13, 734 A.2d 667 ; Chapman, 381 A.2d at 1127 ." Because there is no genuine dispute that a valid and enforceable contract exists concerning Defendants promise to Plaintiffs to have 15 Lindsey Way professionally cleaned prior to closing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' have no remedy available to them under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2011Put another way, "[t]he doctrine of equitable estoppel, as distinguished from the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ordinarily is used defensively and requires a misrepresentation as to a past or present fact." Chrysler Credit Corp., 1998 ME 53 , ~ 28, 707 A.2d at 1318 -19 (citing Chapman v. Bomann, 381 A.2d 1123, 1127 (Me. 1978)).

2023Harvey, 2008 ME 192 , ,r 11, 962 A.2d 322 ; Cottle Enters., 1997 ME 78 , ,r 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330 ; Daigle Commercial Group, Inc., 1999 ME 107 , ,r 13, 734 A.2d 667 ; Chapman, 381 A.2d at 1127 ." Because there is no genuine dispute that a valid and enforceable contract exists concerning Defendants promise to Plaintiffs to have 15 Lindsey Way professionally cleaned prior to closing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' have no remedy available to them under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2023Harvey, 2008 ME 192 , ,r 11, 962 A.2d 322 ; Cottle Enters., 1997 ME 78 , ,r 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330 ; Daigle Commercial Group, Inc., 1999 ME 107 , ,r 13, 734 A.2d 667 ; Chapman, 381 A.2d at 1127 ." Because there is no genuine dispute that a valid and enforceable contract exists concerning Defendants promise to Plaintiffs to have 15 Lindsey Way professionally cleaned prior to closing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' have no remedy available to them under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2011The May 2, 2008 letter that MPERS quotes to support its argument (which is at least the second letter the plaintiff received, after a letter indicating that she would be 3 The court has reservations about characterizing th is case as referring to "future" construction, as the Nappi court cited Tozier v. Tozier, 437 A.2d 645, 648 (Me. 1981) for the proposition that, "In the context of the transfer ofland, when the donee has made substantial improvements to the land in reliance upon the promise to convey the land, courts will enforce the promise to convey," and the construction and reliance appe

2008In a promissory estoppel analysis, “[t]he promise relied on by the promisee need not be express but may be implied from a party’s conduct.” June Roberts Agency, Inc., 676 A.2d at 50 ; see Nappi v. Nappi Distribs., 1997 ME 54, ¶ 9 , 691 A.2d 1198, 1200 (stating that promise may be implied from a party’s conduct). [¶ 15] At least as to the land on which Teresa’s house now sits, a promise by Jeffrey Dow Sr. to convey that specific parcel could be implied from his conduct, and if that implication is made, given that Teresa now has an immobile $200,000 asset on that parcel, “[t]he circumstances [ar

2004Struck v. Hackett, 668 A.2d 411, 420 (Me. 1995) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90); See also Tarbuck v. Jaeckel, 752 A.2d 176, 180 (Me. 2000).

2002See Struck v. Hackett, 668 A.2d 411, 420 (Me. 1995), All of the abovementioned causes of action are based on the premise that the Defendants owed something to the Plaintiff.

2023Harvey, 2008 ME 192 , ,r 11, 962 A.2d 322 ; Cottle Enters., 1997 ME 78 , ,r 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330 ; Daigle Commercial Group, Inc., 1999 ME 107 , ,r 13, 734 A.2d 667 ; Chapman, 381 A.2d at 1127 ." Because there is no genuine dispute that a valid and enforceable contract exists concerning Defendants promise to Plaintiffs to have 15 Lindsey Way professionally cleaned prior to closing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' have no remedy available to them under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2023Harvey, 2008 ME 192 , ,r 11, 962 A.2d 322 ; Cottle Enters., 1997 ME 78 , ,r 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330 ; Daigle Commercial Group, Inc., 1999 ME 107 , ,r 13, 734 A.2d 667 ; Chapman, 381 A.2d at 1127 ." Because there is no genuine dispute that a valid and enforceable contract exists concerning Defendants promise to Plaintiffs to have 15 Lindsey Way professionally cleaned prior to closing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' have no remedy available to them under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2023Harvey, 2008 ME 192 , ,r 11, 962 A.2d 322 ; Cottle Enters., 1997 ME 78 , ,r 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330 ; Daigle Commercial Group, Inc., 1999 ME 107 , ,r 13, 734 A.2d 667 ; Chapman, 381 A.2d at 1127 ." Because there is no genuine dispute that a valid and enforceable contract exists concerning Defendants promise to Plaintiffs to have 15 Lindsey Way professionally cleaned prior to closing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' have no remedy available to them under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2023Harvey, 2008 ME 192 , ,r 11, 962 A.2d 322 ; Cottle Enters., 1997 ME 78 , ,r 17 n.6, 693 A.2d 330 ; Daigle Commercial Group, Inc., 1999 ME 107 , ,r 13, 734 A.2d 667 ; Chapman, 381 A.2d at 1127 ." Because there is no genuine dispute that a valid and enforceable contract exists concerning Defendants promise to Plaintiffs to have 15 Lindsey Way professionally cleaned prior to closing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' have no remedy available to them under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2023App. 2d 419 ,435, 475 P.3d 1011 , 1019 (2020) ("The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply where a contract governs.") 23 are otherwise unenforceable so as to avoid injustice.") The Court grants Defendants' summary judgment on count V (promissory estoppel).

2021See Harvey v. Dow, 2008 ME 192 , ~~ 12-13, 962 A.2d 322 (explaining that "general promises to convey land as a gift or inheritance" are insufficiently specific to be. enforceable under a theory of promissory estoppel); Gagne v. Stevens, 1997 ME 88 , ~ 13, 696 A.2d 411,416 (holding that a promissory estoppel claim failed when there was "no promise specific enough to enforce"); Bennett v. Waynflete, No. CV-93-535, 1994 Me.

2021See Harvey v. Dow, 2008 ME 192 , ~~ 12-13, 962 A.2d 322 (explaining that "general promises to convey land as a gift or inheritance" are insufficiently specific to be. enforceable under a theory of promissory estoppel); Gagne v. Stevens, 1997 ME 88 , ~ 13, 696 A.2d 411,416 (holding that a promissory estoppel claim failed when there was "no promise specific enough to enforce"); Bennett v. Waynflete, No. CV-93-535, 1994 Me.

2019In contrast, a contract that provides for a definite term of employment generally continues until the expiration of the term.") Fish cites to Knowlton v. Shaw, where the United States District Court was faced with a promissory estoppel claim in which the plaintiff alleged that his employer promised him he would be able to keep his job until he retired. 791 F. Supp. 2d 220, 224 (D.

2011Put another way, "[t]he doctrine of equitable estoppel, as distinguished from the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ordinarily is used defensively and requires a misrepresentation as to a past or present fact." Chrysler Credit Corp., 1998 ME 53 , ~ 28, 707 A.2d at 1318 -19 (citing Chapman v. Bomann, 381 A.2d 1123, 1127 (Me. 1978)).

2011Put another way, "[t]he doctrine of equitable estoppel, as distinguished from the doctrine of promissory estoppel, ordinarily is used defensively and requires a misrepresentation as to a past or present fact." Chrysler Credit Corp., 1998 ME 53 , ~ 28, 707 A.2d at 1318 -19 (citing Chapman v. Bomann, 381 A.2d 1123, 1127 (Me. 1978)).

2008In a promissory estoppel analysis, “[t]he promise relied on by the promisee need not be express but may be implied from a party’s conduct.” June Roberts Agency, Inc., 676 A.2d at 50 ; see Nappi v. Nappi Distribs., 1997 ME 54, ¶ 9 , 691 A.2d 1198, 1200 (stating that promise may be implied from a party’s conduct). [¶ 15] At least as to the land on which Teresa’s house now sits, a promise by Jeffrey Dow Sr. to convey that specific parcel could be implied from his conduct, and if that implication is made, given that Teresa now has an immobile $200,000 asset on that parcel, “[t]he circumstances [ar

2008In a promissory estoppel analysis, “[t]he promise relied on by the promisee need not be express but may be implied from a party’s conduct.” June Roberts Agency, Inc., 676 A.2d at 50 ; see Nappi v. Nappi Distribs., 1997 ME 54, ¶ 9 , 691 A.2d 1198, 1200 (stating that promise may be implied from a party’s conduct). [¶ 15] At least as to the land on which Teresa’s house now sits, a promise by Jeffrey Dow Sr. to convey that specific parcel could be implied from his conduct, and if that implication is made, given that Teresa now has an immobile $200,000 asset on that parcel, “[t]he circumstances [ar

2007Defendants argue that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is precluded in this case by the Law Court's ruling in Stearns v. Emery-Waterhouse Co., 596 A.2d 72, 74-75 (Me. 1991).

2004Struck v. Hackett, 668 A.2d 411, 420 (Me. 1995) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90); See also Tarbuck v. Jaeckel, 752 A.2d 176, 180 (Me. 2000).

2004Joseph’s College, 1997 ME 128 , { 6, 695 A.2d 1206, 1209 (quoting Tallwood Land & Dev.

1999See Paffhausen v. Batano, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 5 , 708 A.2d 269, 270-71 . [¶ 14] We have adopted the Restatement formulation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

1999See Paffhausen v. Batano, 1998 ME 47, ¶ 5 , 708 A.2d 269, 270-71 . [¶ 14] We have adopted the Restatement formulation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.