promissory estoppel claim in Kansas

2026See Ritchie Paving, Inc. v. City of Deerfield, 275 Kan. 631, 640-41 , 67 P.3d 843 (2003) (allowing lowest bidder to recover bidding expenses when it did not receive contract despite being lowest bidder but not awarding anticipated profits); Terra Venture, Inc., 340 F. Supp 2d at 1202 (citing Kirkpatrick v. Seneca National Bank, 213 Kan. 61, 68 , 515 P.2d 781 [1973] for the proposition that the "Restatement 2d of Contracts § 90 . . . 'has long been recognized and relied upon by [the Kansas Supreme Court]'"); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90, comment d (1981) (noting that a party is not en

2026See Ritchie Paving, Inc. v. City of Deerfield, 275 Kan. 631, 640-41 , 67 P.3d 843 (2003) (allowing lowest bidder to recover bidding expenses when it did not receive contract despite being lowest bidder but not awarding anticipated profits); Terra Venture, Inc., 340 F. Supp 2d at 1202 (citing Kirkpatrick v. Seneca National Bank, 213 Kan. 61, 68 , 515 P.2d 781 [1973] for the proposition that the "Restatement 2d of Contracts § 90 . . . 'has long been recognized and relied upon by [the Kansas Supreme Court]'"); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90, comment d (1981) (noting that a party is not en

2024The district court considered the purpose of the doctrine and applied the following legal standard: 7 "Promissory estoppel is 'designed to promote some measure of basic fairness when one party makes a representation or promise in a manner reasonably inducing another party to undertake some obligation or to incur some detriment as a result.' Bouton v. Byers, 50 Kan.

2021Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 244 Kan. 555, 574 , 770 P.2d 466 (1989).

2021Mohr v. State Bank of Stanley, 244 Kan. 555, 574 , 770 P.2d 466 (1989).

2014Co., 211 Kan. 427, 435 , 506 P.2d 1163 (1973), in which the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant on a promissory estoppel claim and noted the record contained “no evidence whatsoever of any affirmative inducement or misrepresentation” by the defendant to the plaintiff.

2014Co., 211 Kan. 427, 435 , 506 P.2d 1163 (1973), in which the court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant on a promissory estoppel claim and noted the record contained “no evidence whatsoever of any affirmative inducement or misrepresentation” by the defendant to the plaintiff.

1988The case of Lorson v. Falcon Coach, Inc., 214 Kan. 670 , 522 P.2d 449 (1974), [states] that under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, damages may be granted in Kansas even though and despite the theory of employment at will in certain circumstances.

1988The case of Lorson v. Falcon Coach, Inc., 214 Kan. 670 , 522 P.2d 449 (1974), [states] that under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, damages may be granted in Kansas even though and despite the theory of employment at will in certain circumstances.

1984We note, however, the holding of this court in Decatur Cooperative Association v. Urban, 219 Kan. 171 .

1979In Walker v. Ireton, 221 Kan. 314 , 559 P.2d 340 (1977), this court adopted sections of 197 and 217A, Restatement (Second) of Contracts (Tent.

1979In Walker v. Ireton, 221 Kan. 314 , 559 P.2d 340 (1977), this court adopted sections of 197 and 217A, Restatement (Second) of Contracts (Tent.

1977(First Construction Co., Inc. v. Gallup, 204 Kan. 73 , Syl. 3, 460 P. 2d 594 .) We turn next to appellant’s contention that the option contract should have been enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

1977(First Construction Co., Inc. v. Gallup, 204 Kan. 73 , Syl. 3, 460 P. 2d 594 .) We turn next to appellant’s contention that the option contract should have been enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.