Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC

1 Citing case

  1. P.R.A. Co. v. Arglass Yamamura Se, LLC

    1:24-cv-10204 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 26, 2024)

    Under applicable Michigan law, in the absence of a valid contract, a court may enforce a promise between the parties so long as (1) the parties made a promise; (2) the promisee acted in reliance; (3) the promisor “should reasonably have expected to induce” the promisee's reliance; and (4) enforcing the promise avoids injustice. Seither & Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC, No. 23-11310, 2024 WL 4507355, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2024) (citing Curry, 500 N.W.2d at 107). As recognized by the Sixth Circuit, Michigan law instructs that the doctrine of promissory estoppel “should be cautiously applied” only when the promise is “definite and clear,” the facts are “unquestionable,” and the wrong to be avoided is “undoubted.” Home-Owners Insurance Co. v. Boxer, No. 23-1935, 2024 WL 4524741, at *7 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2024) (quoting Marrero v. McDonnell Douglas Cap. Corp., 505 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) and Novak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 599 N.W.2d 546, 552 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)).