398 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. 1965)
Petitioner entered into a contract whereby respondent was to obtain a loan for petitioner within six months of the date of the contract. The loan described the contract terms and provided that respondent was to be paid for obtaining the loan and receive a commission on all rentals received from tenants procured by petitioner. After the contract had been signed by both parties, respondent assured petitioner that the money would be available and urged him to proceed with the necessary task of demolishing the building on the site for construction of the new building. Pursuant to such promises, petitioner proceeded to raze the old building and prepare the land for the new structure. No loan was procured and respondent refused to provide one.
The court found that although the terms of the contract itself lacked sufficiency, petitioner's alternative pleadings on the theory of estoppel stated a cause of action.
The court reversed and remanded the case for trial, finding that although the terms of the contract itself lacked sufficiency, petitioner's alternative pleadings on the theory of estoppel stated a cause of action.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.