Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Facts: On March 3, when the plaintiff was asked by the defenders to enlarge the operations, the plaintiff disagreed alleging that it could incur expenses if at all it wanted to accommodate the defendant’s plan of which it was not ready. The defendants promised the plaintiff to help it negotiate with the other Lammert tenants to relocate. All of which the defendants did not do.
Issue: Under the Missouri laws, was there a crime committed under the promissory estoppels?
Answer: yes.
Courts Rationale: The prosecutor was able to assert a promise which relied on its detriments.
Significance of the Case: This case is so helpful in today’s society whereby parties are advised not to limit their negotiations on the act of faith. They should ensure written and signed agreements when making any deals.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.