577 N.E.2d 949 (Ind. 1991)
Bank sought review of the judgment entered against it as damages for breach of a loan commitment. The issue before the court was whether the parties entered into a contract to loan money and what damages were recoverable. The bank challenged both liability and damages claiming there was no enforceable oral agreement to make the loan, and that, because the manufacturers had failed to comply with the pre-closing conditions, the bank was not obligated to make the loan pursuant to the loan commitment.
- The court determined that the trial court had erred in holding that there was an enforceable oral contract.
- The court held that there was no enforceable contract because there was no mutuality of obligation.
- The court determined that no written contract had been formed.
- The court concluded that all five elements of promissory estoppel were established by the evidence.
- The manufacturers had acted in reliance on promises made by the bank officer.
- The court vacated the award for a decrease in value of certain equipment.
The court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reversed the judgment of the trial court.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.