Posted On: November 16, 2009

Illinois Courts Recognize Promissory Estoppel As A Cause of Action

Illinois Courts define promissory estoppel as a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1), at 242 (1981). To establish a claim for promissory estoppel in Illinois, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unambiguous promise to plaintiff, the plaintiff relied on such promise, the plaintiff’s reliance was expected and foreseeable by defendants, and the plaintiff relied on the promise to its detriment. Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor Corporation, 233 Ill.2d 46, 906 N.E.2d 520, 329 Ill.Dec. 322 (2009).

Promissory estoppel may be an option for a party to recover without the presence of a contract. Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor Corporation (2009). Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel although there may be absent a bargain for consideration, a person who makes a promise may nonetheless be bound by its terms. Bank of Marion v. Robert Fritz, Inc., 57 Ill.2d 120, 311 N.E.2d 138 (1974). Promissory estoppel is most extensively recognized as a defensive measure with respect to the abandonment of existing legal rights. Newton Tractor Sales, Inc. v. Kubota Tractor Corporation (2009). However, in Illinois and other states, the Courts also understand promissory estoppel as an offensive theory of recovery, or cause of action, in any situation where one party relies on the promise of another party to its detriment in such a manner that it would be an injustice not to enforce the promise. See id.

Informational Purposes Only: The content of this writing was prepared by Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC for informational purposes only. The content of this writing is not intended to constitute and does not constitute legal advice. Reading the content of this writing or communicating with our office staff or attorneys by telephone, fax or e-mail does not make you a client of Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC. To become a client, you must sign and return our governing engagement agreement. Persons reading the content of this writing should not act upon this information without contacting and speaking with an attorney. Do not issue or provide us with confidential information until an attorney-client relationship has been formally established with our firm.

About Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC: Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC is a business litigation firm. Litigators Walid Tamari and Grant Blumenthal practice in the law firm's complex litigation practice group.

Posted On: November 4, 2009

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Forum Selection Clauses are Generally Enforceable

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the opposing party to be unreasonable under the circumstances. Applied Card Systems, Inc. v. Winthrop Resources Corp., No. Civ. A. 03-4104, 2003 WL 22351950, *2. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has explicitly held that a forum selection clause in a standardized, non-negotiable contract may be quite permissible. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 593-94, 111 S.Ct 1522, 113 L.Ed.2d 622 (1991). The Courts reason that a party, especially one that conducts business around the world, might have a special interest in limiting the jurisdictions in which it could be subject to suit. Tricome v. Ebay, Inc. 2009 WL 3365873 (E.D.Pa.) However, the Courts may deem a forum selection clause invalid if there is some form of contractual unconscionability. See id. For instance, courts may deem the forum selection clause unenforceable if the party challenging the user agreement did not have a meaningful choice regarding the acceptance of its provisions because there were high pressure tactics or external pressures used to require the acceptance of the agreement. See id.

Informational Purposes Only: The content of this writing was prepared by Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC for informational purposes only. The content of this writing is not intended to constitute and does not constitute legal advice. Reading the content of this writing or communicating with our office staff or attorneys by telephone, fax or e-mail does not make you a client of Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC. To become a client, you must sign and return our governing engagement agreement. Persons reading the content of this writing should not act upon this information without contacting and speaking with an attorney. Do not issue or provide us with confidential information until an attorney-client relationship has been formally established with our firm.

About Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC: Tamari & Blumenthal, LLC is a business litigation firm. Litigators Walid J. Tamari and Grant Blumenthal practice in the law firm's complex litigation practice group.