Irac #2

Arrow Glass Company filed a lawsuit against Traco for promising to pay $27,860 for aluminum and glass doors but then failing to pay. The court determined that promissory estoppel applied because Traco assured Arrow Glass that the doors met specifications. The higher courts upheld the ruling, finding that Traco was liable based on their promise even though the contract was not fully formed.

Uploaded by

Khoi Nguyen

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Download as pdf or txt

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

210 views3 pages

Irac #2

Uploaded by

Khoi Nguyen

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Download as pdf or txt

You are on page 1/ 3

Thanh Khoi Nguyen

Bus-71
Professor Graves
11/04/2021
Summary
For the delivery of aluminum and glass doors, Arrow Glass Company entered into a
contract with Traco, Inc. Sliding doors were quoted by Traco, Inc. in the sum of Twenty-Seven
Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($27,860) to Arrow Glass Co. for installation. Traco,
Inc. assured the project team that these doors would meet all of the project specifications. The
court determined that there was sufficient evidence to find that Traco, Inc. had reneged on its
promise to pay the specified amount for supplies. Since Arrow Glass bid on the incorrect door,
Traco, Inc. has been appealing their choices. Arrow Glass Company filed a lawsuit against
Traco, alleging carelessness and promissory estoppel. The court upheld the lower court's ruling,
finding that promissory estoppel applied in this particular instance. The judgment is upheld by
the court due to the fact that the company's rules and procedures were followed by a restriction
on who may view the information.
[TRACO, INC. v. ARROW GLASS CO., 814 S.W.2D 186 (TEXAS. APP. 1991)]
Issues
Is it possible that the evidence presented proves that the defendants went over and above the
specified price for the supplies?
Rules
An individual who relied on an agreement in good faith and who then attempted to collect
damages did so in a harmful way may be entitled to recover damages from the other person who
relied on the agreement.
Analysis
It was determined that promissory estoppel applied in this case after evaluating the evidence
that three conditions of promissory estoppel had been fulfilled. The Supreme Court agreed with
this reasoning and held that it was appropriate to apply it in this situation. A combination of the
limited regulations and information provided by the corporation and the reality that this
information is restricted led to the verdict being upheld by the Court. It is possible for a person
who placed reasonable reliance on a promise to be entitled to recover damages as a consequence
of the promise being breached. It is conceivable to assert promissory estoppel as a cause of
action in the context of construction bid disputes. Morris stated the expectation that, in return for
adopting the proposal, Traco would provide Arrow with the supplies it would need to complete
the project, and Traco agreed to do so.
Conclusion
When the evidence was taken into consideration, the Texas Supreme Court concluded that
promissory estoppel was relevant in this instance. They examined the three conditions of
promissory estoppel, and Morris accepted Ferrar's proposal with the belief that it would be
upheld in court. That Traco would give Arrow the materials it would need to execute the project
on time and under budget. Promissory estoppel was used by the Court to determine that Arrow
Glass Co. was entitled to judgment. The failure of the appellant to verify design specifications
resulted in the incorrect door being bid on due to the appellant's negligence.
References