Sept 17 2009

Elements of Promissory Estoppel in Shoemaker v. Commonwealth bank
 Commonwealth acknowledge that a promise occurred through a letter sent to
o The first element of PE in §90 of restatement is a promise made
 Once the court finds that Commonwealth made a promise beyond
1994, then it kills the argument that Commonwealth did not
expect Shoemaker to reasonably rely on the promise
 Was there actual reliance Yes.
o No question in the courts mind that shoemaker relied on the promise by
paying the insurance premiums
o Because the court concluded that there is sufficient evidence to create a
genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of
Shoemakers’ reliance. Accrordingly, we hold that the trial court erred by
granting summary judgment on the Shoemakers’ promissory estoppel
UCC has no rule on promissory estoppel. When UCC does not speak of this issue, we
must reger to the common law
1. Plan A: Breach of contract
a. Remedies for plan A include expectation damages
b. Attempts to remedy a party if the contract had been fulfilled
2. Plan B: Promissory Estoppel
a. Sometimes expectation Damagaes
b. Attempts to put party at as good a position that they were in
before the promise
i. Attempts to restore to the status quo
c. Plan C: Quasi-contract
i. Tries to determine which party was unjustly enriched, and
attempts to strip unjust enriched of those benfits
d. Plan D: Material benefit rule
Implied-in-fact contract
 No classic consideration acceptance, but the conduct of the party may constitute
an offer and acceptance
Credit Burea Enterprises, Inc. V. Pelo
608 N.W. 2d 20 (Iowa 200)
 Application of Rest.2d of restitution
 §107 Effect of Existence of Bargain upon Right to Restitution (p.263 in
(1) a person of full capacity who, pursuant ot a contract with
another, has performed services or transferred property to the
other or otherwise has conferred a benefit upon him, is not
entititled to compensation therefore other than in accordance
with the terms of such bargain, unless the transaction is rescinded
for rfraud, mistake, duress, undue influence or illegality, or unless
the other has failed to perform his part of the bargain
 (2) In the absence of circumstances indicating otherwise, it is
inferred that a person who requests another to perform services
for him or to transfer property to him thereby bargainst to pay
§117 (p.264 in casebook)
Commerce Partnership 8098 Limited Partnership v. Equity Contracting Co.
695 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1997)
 Applicable under Quasi Contract law? No.
o Elements to prove
  conferred a benefit to 
  has knowledge of benefit
 Benefit accepted/obtained by 
 Under the circumstances it would be inequitable for Defendant to
retain the benefit without paying for it
 Sub against owner
o Sub must exhaust remedies against General
contractor and the owner received the benefit w/o
paying anyone
 Hillman Const. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So. 2d 576, 577 (Fla. 4th DCA
o Henry M. Butler, Inc. v. Trizec Properies, Inc., 524 So. 2d 710, 711-12 (Fla.
2d DCA 1988)
o Because Plaintiff in the present case did not prove that Defendant did not
pay anyone for the benefit conferred by Plaintiff, Plaintiff cannot recover
under a quasi contract theory.
o Under the Quasi Contract Law, the Sub is required to prove that the
Owner failed to pay the general contractor in order to win suit against
o The court found that the  was unable to prove that the 