OK, now it gets interesting.
The case is Cohen v. Cowles Media Company, 457 NW 2d 199
this one was appealed many times.
I read the case book version. It did not give the holding, but there were a couple of sentences that used the word conclude. They concluded that "a contract cause of action is inappropriate for these particular circumstances."
So it sounds like the promise given is not a contract.
So I'm briefing the case and I wnt to make a little more complete. Like I want to put in a disposition of the case. That information is missing from the casebook version. So I look at Westlaw.
It turns out that the court found that there was a contract, but not on another basis.
Geez, this is fun.
Here's what I found:
"We opted instead for a promissory estoppel analysis. The doctrine of promissory estoppel implies a contract in law where none exists in fact. "