Brief Fact Summary. All-Tech Telecom, Inc. (Plaintiff), sued Amway Corporation (Defendant) for damages sustained due to a botched transaction. The court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on the counts of intentional and negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel. Plaintiff appealed.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A party may not use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to get a judgment for actions that would lead to a judgment for breach of warranty but cannot be proven.
Issue. Should the trial court have granted Defendant summary judgment on the claims of misrepresentation and promissory estoppel?
Held. Yes. The court was correct to grant summary judgment on both counts.
The court threw out the claim of misrepresentation after finding that the basis for the claim was “puffing,” and that no reasonable person would rely upon.
The “promise” that Plaintiff contended was the basis for their claim of promissory estoppel, was that Defendant had performed certain tasks before entering into a contract with Plaintiff. Promissory estoppel is a doctrine, which allows a party to be compensated if the party relies on a promise to do something in the future. In this case, Plaintiff is trying to apply promissory estoppel to a set of facts, which is more appropriate for a claim of breach of warranty.
Discussion. In this case, the appropriate cause of action is breach of warranty. The Uniform Commercial Code provides what is necessary for a buyer to make a successful claim for breach of warranty. For example, the buyer should obtain seller’s representations in writing.