This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P solicited bids from subcontractors for various portions of work to be performed for building a Home Depot. D faxed a written but unsigned bid in the amount of $115,000 for installation of the Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS) on the project. D's proposal stated: 'Our price is good for 30 days.' P relied upon D's bid in preparing its overall price for the project. P used D's price of $115,000 for the EIFS portion of the work in arriving at the total bid submitted to the owner. P was the successful bidder for the project. On January 11, 2002, within the 30-day 'price is good' period, P sent a subcontract for the EIFS work to D to be signed and returned. D advised P that it would not sign the subcontract or perform on the project because D had signed four other contracts that were bid around the same time period. P entered into a subcontract with a replacement subcontractor to install the EIFS at a cost of $131,449, which exceeded Subcontractor's quoted price by $16,449. P filed suit based upon promissory estoppel. The court ruled in favor of P and awarded $16,449 in damages but denied P's request for attorneys' fees. Everyone appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.