« on: December 04, 2005, 02:23:54 AM »
Actually, it would be Rest 2nd 139, not 90. My only reason in bringing this UCC/Common law example up is that although it is apparent that we would look to the common law for remedies such as this, some jurisdictions have the point of view that the "specific governs the general". What this means is that under UCC 2-201 (3), there are 3 exceptions to the writing requirement and that some jurisdictions might interpret those 3 as exclusive; therefore, promissory estoppel claims wouldn't apply.
Let me know if I'm not getting this or if it's confusing, because I'm working through it for the first time since lecture.
I thought promissory estoppel applies as an exception under SOF. If you can't find a signed writing to the oral K, it is still enforceable if there was reliance under promissory estoppel theory. Please correct me if I am wrong.