Notes - Chapman v. Bomann | Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman | September 06, 2012


This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you. Notes - Chapman v. Bomann

by Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman



For the use of estoppel in avoiding the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, see Chapter 6, Section 4. See also Henderson, Promissory Estoppel and Traditional Contract Doctrine, 78 Yale L.J. 343, 381-383 (1969).


Is a court order compelling defendants to sign the contract justifiable? If the doctrine of promissory estoppel is designed to protect the plaintiffs' reliance interest only, shouldn't their remedy be limited to damages? The plaintiffs presumably still have the money they borrowed, which they could pay back early; if so, their loss will be limited to interest and points already paid and a prepayment penalty, if any.


Annotated Text Information

June 02, 2014 Notes - Chapman v. Bomann Notes - Chapman v. Bomann

Author Stats

Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman

Leitura Garamond Futura Verdana Proxima Nova Dagny Web
small medium large extra-large