indispensable element doctrine in California

2026The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .” [Citation.] The promise must, in addition, be ‘clear and unambiguous in its terms.’ [Citation.] ‘Estoppel cannot be established from . . . preliminary discussions and negotiations.’ ” (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044 .)5 4 The Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) requires creditors to provide a loan estimate to a consumer no later t

2026We agree with Defendants. “ ‘[A] promise is an indispensable element of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.’ ” (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044 .) Promissory estoppel requires “ ‘that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to [that party’s] prejudice.’ ” (Ibid.) The promise must be “ ‘clear and unambiguous in its terms’ ” and cannot be established from “ ‘preliminary discussions and negotiations.’ ” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiffs claim Defendants promised to (1) “create CHange,” (2) “provide the use of Scripps labs and post-docs,” and (3) “wor

2026(Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 411, 416 (Granadino).) To the extent these promises were part of a bargain, like Clarke obtaining equity when 14 creating CHange, promissory estoppel “is inapplicable.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 249 .) Thus, a claim for promissory estoppel based on creating CHange fails as a matter of law.

2023The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .” [Citation.] The promise must, in addition, be “clear and unambiguous in its terms.” [Citation.] “Estoppel cannot be established from . . . preliminary discussions and negotiations.” ’ ” (Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 411, 417 (Granadino); see Pacific Bay Recovery, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 215, fn. 6 [provider failed to state a cause of action

2015(Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 310 ; see Rest.2d Contracts, § 90, subd. (1).) " '[A] promise is an indispensable element of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2014The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.' [Citations.] Promissory estoppel is 'a doctrine which employs equitable principles to satisfy the requirement that consideration must be given in exchange for the promise sought to be enforced.' [Citation.]" (Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 310 .) " '[A] promise is an indispensable element of the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

2015The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice.' [Citation.] The promise must, in addition, be 27 'clear and unambiguous in its terms.' " (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044 .) For a promise to be enforceable, it need only be " 'definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty[,] and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of

2013The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .’ [Citation.] The promise must, in addition, be ‘clear and unambiguous in its terms.’ [Citation.]” (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 ].) For a promise to be enforceable, it need only be “ ‘definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty[,] and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide

2023The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .” [Citation.] The promise must, in addition, be “clear and unambiguous in its terms.” [Citation.] “Estoppel cannot be established from . . . preliminary discussions and negotiations.” ’ ” (Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 411, 417 (Granadino); see Pacific Bay Recovery, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 215, fn. 6 [provider failed to state a cause of action

2010The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .” (Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Transpacific Transportation Co. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 268, 277 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 855 ].) The promise must, in addition, be “clear and unambiguous in its terms.” (Laks v. Coast Fed.

2010The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .” (Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Transpacific Transportation Co. (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 268, 277 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 855 ].) The promise must, in addition, be “clear and unambiguous in its terms.” (Laks v. Coast Fed.