Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commercial Bank of Gideon v. Bien Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 27, 1992No. 17474Published

1DissentShrum, Presiding Judge

I respectfully dissent.

It is well settled in Missouri that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is to be used with caution, sparingly, and only in extreme cases to avoid unjust results. Geisinger v. A & B Farms, Inc., 820 S.W.2d 96, 98 (Mo.App.1991); Meinhold v. Huang, 687 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Mo.App.1985); Mayer v. King Cola Mid-America, Inc., 660 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Mo.App.1983).

To recover under the doctrine of promissory estoppel the Bank was required to prove that (a) a promise was made by Bien; (b) Bien had a reasonable expectation that the promise would induce action by the Bank; (c) action was…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  2. Southern Missouri Bank v. FogleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Mayer v. King Cola Mid-America, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Geisinger v. a & B FARMS, INC.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Meinhold v. HuangMissouri Court of Appeals · 1985

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API