promissory estoppel claim in Michigan

2023Turning to plaintiff’s alternative claim of promissory estoppel, this Court has stated: The elements of a promissory estoppel claim consist of (1) a promise (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and (3) that, in fact, produced reliance or forbearance of that nature (4) in circumstances requiring enforcement -3- of the promise if injustice is to be avoided. [Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 41 ; 761 NW2d 151 (2008).] This Court also has held that the promise must be “an

2023Turning to plaintiff’s alternative claim of promissory estoppel, this Court has stated: The elements of a promissory estoppel claim consist of (1) a promise (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and (3) that, in fact, produced reliance or forbearance of that nature (4) in circumstances requiring enforcement -3- of the promise if injustice is to be avoided. [Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 41 ; 761 NW2d 151 (2008).] This Court also has held that the promise must be “an

2017Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, courts may enforce a contract in equity if “there was a promise, the promisor reasonably should have expected the promise to cause the promisee to act in a definite and substantial manner, the promisee did in fact rely on the promise by acting in accordance with its terms, and [the] promise must be enforced to avoid injustice.” Crown Technology Park v D & N Bank, FSB, 242 Mich App 538, 548-549 ; 619 NW2d 66 (2000) (ordinals omitted).

2017Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, courts may enforce a contract in equity if “there was a promise, the promisor reasonably should have expected the promise to cause the promisee to act in a definite and substantial manner, the promisee did in fact rely on the promise by acting in accordance with its terms, and [the] promise must be enforced to avoid injustice.” Crown Technology Park v D & N Bank, FSB, 242 Mich App 538, 548-549 ; 619 NW2d 66 (2000) (ordinals omitted).

2018Rather, this is a case in which the trial court found that the elements of promissory estoppel were satisfied, i.e. that a preponderance of the evidence existed that there was (1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, (3) which in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature, and (4) in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided. -4- [Joerger v Gordon Food Serv, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 173 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997).] Defendants make no argu

2018Rather, this is a case in which the trial court found that the elements of promissory estoppel were satisfied, i.e. that a preponderance of the evidence existed that there was (1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, (3) which in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature, and (4) in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided. -4- [Joerger v Gordon Food Serv, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 173 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997).] Defendants make no argu

2023Turning to plaintiff’s alternative claim of promissory estoppel, this Court has stated: The elements of a promissory estoppel claim consist of (1) a promise (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and (3) that, in fact, produced reliance or forbearance of that nature (4) in circumstances requiring enforcement -3- of the promise if injustice is to be avoided. [Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 41 ; 761 NW2d 151 (2008).] This Court also has held that the promise must be “an

2023Turning to plaintiff’s alternative claim of promissory estoppel, this Court has stated: The elements of a promissory estoppel claim consist of (1) a promise (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and (3) that, in fact, produced reliance or forbearance of that nature (4) in circumstances requiring enforcement -3- of the promise if injustice is to be avoided. [Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 41 ; 761 NW2d 151 (2008).] This Court also has held that the promise must be “an

2023A. APPLICABLE LAW The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are (1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and (3) that in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided. [Cove Creek Condo Ass’n v Vistal Land & Home Dev, LLC, 330 Mich App 679 , 713; 950 NW2d 502 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “In determining whether a requisite promise existed, we are to objectively examine

2023A. APPLICABLE LAW The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are (1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, and (3) that in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided. [Cove Creek Condo Ass’n v Vistal Land & Home Dev, LLC, 330 Mich App 679 , 713; 950 NW2d 502 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).] “In determining whether a requisite promise existed, we are to objectively examine

2018“This Court need not address an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal because it is not properly preserved for appellate review.” Dep’t of Environmental Quality v Morley, 314 Mich App 306, 318 ; 885 NW2d 892 (2016).

2018“This Court need not address an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal because it is not properly preserved for appellate review.” Dep’t of Environmental Quality v Morley, 314 Mich App 306, 318 ; 885 NW2d 892 (2016).

2018Rather, this is a case in which the trial court found that the elements of promissory estoppel were satisfied, i.e. that a preponderance of the evidence existed that there was (1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, (3) which in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature, and (4) in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided. -4- [Joerger v Gordon Food Serv, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 173 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997).] Defendants make no argu

2018Rather, this is a case in which the trial court found that the elements of promissory estoppel were satisfied, i.e. that a preponderance of the evidence existed that there was (1) a promise, (2) that the promisor should reasonably have expected to induce action of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee, (3) which in fact produced reliance or forbearance of that nature, and (4) in circumstances such that the promise must be enforced if injustice is to be avoided. -4- [Joerger v Gordon Food Serv, Inc, 224 Mich App 167, 173 ; 568 NW2d 365 (1997).] Defendants make no argu

2017Kelly-Stehney & Assoc, Inc v MacDonald’s Indus Prods, Inc, 254 Mich App 608, 613-615 ; 658 NW2d 494 (2003), vacated 469 Mich 1046 (2004).

2017Kelly-Stehney & Assoc, Inc v MacDonald’s Indus Prods, Inc, 254 Mich App 608, 613-615 ; 658 NW2d 494 (2003), vacated 469 Mich 1046 (2004).

2017Kelly-Stehney & Assoc, Inc v MacDonald’s Indus Prods, Inc, 254 Mich App 608, 613-615 ; 658 NW2d 494 (2003), vacated 469 Mich 1046 (2004).

2017Kelly-Stehney & Assoc, Inc v MacDonald’s Indus Prods, Inc, 254 Mich App 608, 613-615 ; 658 NW2d 494 (2003), vacated 469 Mich 1046 (2004).

2015Booker v Detroit, 251 Mich App 167, 174 ; 650 NW2d 680 (2002), rev’d in part on other grounds 469 Mich 892 (2003).

2015Booker v Detroit, 251 Mich App 167, 174 ; 650 NW2d 680 (2002), rev’d in part on other grounds 469 Mich 892 (2003).

2015Booker v Detroit, 251 Mich App 167, 174 ; 650 NW2d 680 (2002), rev’d in part on other grounds 469 Mich 892 (2003).

2008Booker v Detroit, 251 Mich App 167, 174 ; 650 NW2d 680 (2002), rev’d in part on other grounds 469 Mich 892 (2003). “ £A promise is a manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting in a specific way, so made as to justify a promisee in understanding that a commitment has been made.’ ” State Bank of Standish v Curry, 442 Mich 76, 85 ; 500 NW2d 104 (1993) (citation omitted).

1984Rowe v Noren Pattern & Foundry Co, 91 Mich App 254 ; 283 NW2d 713 (1979), lv den 409 Mich 880 (1980), and Schipani v Ford Motor Co, 102 Mich App 606 ; 302 NW2d 307 (1981), say that giving up an existing job in reliance on an oral promise of long-term employment will not constitute sufficient reliance to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel, but that somehow the fact that the relinquished employment has good attributes (retirement benefits in Rowe, union security in Schipani) is a more sufficient and adequate reliance. 6 Such facts may be relevant at trial, providing corroborating evidenc

1984Rowe v Noren Pattern & Foundry Co, 91 Mich App 254 ; 283 NW2d 713 (1979), lv den 409 Mich 880 (1980), and Schipani v Ford Motor Co, 102 Mich App 606 ; 302 NW2d 307 (1981), say that giving up an existing job in reliance on an oral promise of long-term employment will not constitute sufficient reliance to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel, but that somehow the fact that the relinquished employment has good attributes (retirement benefits in Rowe, union security in Schipani) is a more sufficient and adequate reliance. 6 Such facts may be relevant at trial, providing corroborating evidenc

1969In In re Upper Peninsula Development Bureau (1961), 364 Mich 179 , this Court stated (p 184): “This Court has recognized the rule that mutual promises between subscribers of pledges for a lawful purpose will constitute a consideration therefor.” The Court quoted from Waters v. Union Trust Co. (1902), 129 Mich 640 , which involved an attempt to collect a subscription to a church building fund.

1968The court refers specifically to the case of In re Upper Peninsula Development Bureau (1961), 364 Mich 179 , in determining which theory of law shall be applied.

2024Able Demolition, Inc v Pontiac, 275 Mich App 577 , 586 n 4; 739 NW2d 696 (2007).

2024Able Demolition, Inc v Pontiac, 275 Mich App 577 , 586 n 4; 739 NW2d 696 (2007).

2023Id.

2021Id.

2020Klein v HP Pelzer Auto Sys, Inc, 306 Mich App 67, 83 ; 854 NW2d 521 (2014).

2020Klein v HP Pelzer Auto Sys, Inc, 306 Mich App 67, 83 ; 854 NW2d 521 (2014).

2018See, e.g., Collin v Kittelberger 36 (applying prospectively from effective date of the statute of frauds, any contract for commissions on order of realty must be in writing, but did not affect a contract existing when it took effect); Paul v Graham 37 (holding that “[i]n order to give the act the effect which the 30 Tiffany Inc v WMK Transit Mix, Inc, 16 Ariz App 415, 421 (1972). 31 Sinclair v Sullivan Chevrolet Co, 45 Ill App 2d 10, 17 (1964). 32 Austin v Cash, 274 Mont 54, 62 (1995), quoting Schwedes v Romain, 179 Mont 466, 472 (1978). 33 Anderson Const Co, Inc v Lyon Metal Prod, Inc, 370 So

2016In order to sustain a claim of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish “(1) the receipt of a benefit by defendant from plaintiff, and (2) an inequity resulting to plaintiff because of the retention of the benefit by defendant.” Belle Isle Grill Corp v Detroit, 256 Mich App 463, 478 ; 666 NW2d 271 (2003).

2016In order to sustain a claim of unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish “(1) the receipt of a benefit by defendant from plaintiff, and (2) an inequity resulting to plaintiff because of the retention of the benefit by defendant.” Belle Isle Grill Corp v Detroit, 256 Mich App 463, 478 ; 666 NW2d 271 (2003).

2015Silver Creek Twp, 246 Mich App at 99 . 11 Further, several of the alleged promises contained in the complaint are not attributed to any particular defendant, and, as the trial court noted, are statements of opinion or mere predictions of future events and are not promises under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. -7- III.

2015“To be sufficient to support an estoppel, a promise must be definite and clear.” McMath v Ford Motor Co, 77 Mich App 721, 726 ; 259 NW2d 140 (1977).

2015“To be sufficient to support an estoppel, a promise must be definite and clear.” McMath v Ford Motor Co, 77 Mich App 721, 726 ; 259 NW2d 140 (1977).

2007UAW-GM Human Resource Ctr v KSL Recreation Corp, 228 Mich App 486, 504 ; 579 NW2d 411 (1998).

2007UAW-GM Human Resource Ctr v KSL Recreation Corp, 228 Mich App 486, 504 ; 579 NW2d 411 (1998).