Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chesus v. Watts

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 3, 1998No. WD 52746Published

1DissentHoward, Judge

I would decline to embrace the concept of a third party theory of recovery under promissory estoppel in this ease.

I find it easy to sympathize with the plight of the homeowners. However, allowing this type of recovery molds the case into a form unrecognizable to the parties or the trial judge. This concept of relief has not been accepted in Missouri and was not pled, tried or argued at either the trial or appellate level. I would not breathe life into it at this juncture. Additionally, I do not believe plaintiffs can prevail on their original theories of fraud and misrepresentation and breach…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Sofka v. ThalSupreme Court of Missouri · 1983
  2. Slone v. Purina Mills, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. Berra v. Papin Builders, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Grosser v. Kandel-Iken Builders, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Link v. KroenkeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1995

6 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