PERRY PUBLICATIONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Perry Publications appeals a judgment awarding Bankers Life and Casualty Company the value of unused advertising credit. The court affirms, finding that Bankers' claim based on promissory estoppel was properly applied because Perry's written extension of the advertising credit period induced Bankers to rely on it, and enforcing the promise is necessary to avoid injustice.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies and was properly utilized in this case. Perry's written promise to extend the advertising credit period is binding because the promise was one the promisor should reasonably expect to induce reliance, it did produce such reliance, and enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice.
[1] A promise is binding if the promisor should reasonably expect it to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character by the promisee, and it does induce such actio…
[2] Promissory estoppel may be applied in Florida to enforce a promise where injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a promise, which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of promisee and which does produce such action or forbearance is binding if an injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise”
Definition of promissory estoppel adopted from prior case law and applied to establish the legal standard for the court's decision
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerry granted Bankers $50,000 in advertising credit in newspapers, usable within 36 months, in exchange for Bankers conveying real property to Perry. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Promissory Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
Perry Publications, Inc., (hereafter referred to as Perry) appeals from a judgment entered against it in favor of Bankers Life and Casualty Company (hereafter referred to as Bankers).
The case was tried on stipulated facts. Those facts reveal that in consideration of the conveyance of real property by Bankers to Perry, Perry granted Bankers advertising credit of the value of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) to be used in papers owned by Perry. This credit was to be used up or exhausted during a period of thirty-six months. About five months before the expiration of the credit time, and at a time when a substantial portion of the credit had not been used, Bankers requested from Perry an extension of one year from the original expiration date within which to use the credit. Perry agreed in writing to this extension. It was stipulated that Bankers had the ability to consume or use the credit to achieve the benefit of its bargain within the allotted time, but upon receiving the extension of time, did not do so.
Thereafter, Perry sold its newspapers, thereby placing itself in a position where it could not complete the contract of affording advertising to Bankers. Bankers filed this suit to recover the value of the unused portion of the advertising. The trial judge entered judgment in favor of Bankers to that extent.
*605The theory of the Bankers’ case is that of promissory estoppel. This doctrine has not been successfully utilized in Florida thus far in any reported cases, but reference is made to it in two cases (South Inv. Corp. v. Norton (Fla.1952) 57 So.2d 1 and Southeastern Sales & Service Co. v. T. T. Watson, Inc. (Fla.App.1965) 172 So.2d 239). In the latter, the Court stated the “doctrine of ‘promissory estoppel’ broadly stated is that a promise, which the promi-sor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of promisee and which does produce such action or forbearance is binding if an injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.”
The facts of this case fall within that definition and the doctrine was properly utilized in this instance.
The Judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
CROSS, C. J., and REED, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elgin Nat'l Indus., Inc. v. Howard Indus., Inc., 264 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…e judgment of the trial court is supportable on the theory of promissory estoppel. See Southeastern Sales & Service Co. v. T. T. Watson, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 239; Perry Publications, Inc. v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 604; 12 Fla.Jur., Estoppel and Waiver, 1972 Supp. § 40. Affirmed.…
-
In re Est. of Berry L. Ingram v. Byrl D. Ingram, 302 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…oided only by enforcement of the promise. Southeastern Sales & Service Co. v. T. T. Watson, Inc., Fla.App. 2d 1965, 172 So. 2d 239; Restatement of Contracts, § 90; Cf. Perry Publications, Inc. v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Fla.App. 4th 1971, 246 So. 2d 604; Elgin National Industries, Inc. v. Howard Industries, Inc., Fla.App. 2d 1972, 264 So. 2d 440. See also, Mount Sinai Hosp. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Jordan, Fla. 1974, 290 So. 2d 484, 486, which approved the statement of the law recited by the Third…
-
Pinnacle Port Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Orenstein, 872 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1989)…the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of promissee and which does produce such action or forbearance is binding ... Perry Publications, Inc. v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company, 246 So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971); see also Crown Life Ins. Co. v. McBride, 517 So. 2d 660, 662 (Fla.1987) (describing elements of promissory estoppel and including element of detrimental reliance). Promissory estoppel’s only relevant difference from est…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. Inv. Corp. v. Norton, 57 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1952)
- Se. Sales & Serv. Co. v. T. T. Watson, Inc., 172 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)