Caseflicks

Texas Supreme Court • 1965

Wheeler v. White

398 S.W.2d 93 | 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 105 | 1965 Tex. LEXIS 244

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case establishes that in Texas, a party who substantially and foreseeably relies on an otherwise unenforceable promise may recover reliance damages through promissory estoppel, but not the expected profits of the unperformed deal.

Background

Ellis Wheeler owned land in Port Arthur and planned to build a commercial building or shopping center. He and S. E. White signed an agreement under which White would obtain, or personally provide, a $70,000 construction loan within six months. The loan was to run for fifteen years, be paid in monthly installments, and carry no more than six percent annual interest. Wheeler agreed to pay White $5,000 for securing the loan, along with commissions on rents from tenants White procured.

After the agreement was signed, White assured Wheeler that the financing would be available and urged him to demolish the existing buildings to prepare the site. White also said that, if outside financing could not be obtained, he would make the loan himself. Relying on those assurances, Wheeler razed buildings worth $58,500 and yielding $400 per month in rent, and prepared the property for construction. White later said that no loan would be made. Wheeler alleged that he unsuccessfully made reasonable efforts to obtain financing elsewhere.

Wheeler sued for damages for breach of contract and pleaded promissory estoppel in the alternative if the agreement was too indefinite to enforce. White specially excepted, arguing that the agreement omitted essential financing terms, including the amount of monthly installments and the calculation and timing of interest, and that estoppel supplied no claim. The trial court sustained the exceptions and dismissed the suit when Wheeler declined to amend. The court of civil appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the contract itself was too indefinite, but that Wheeler had adequately pleaded promissory estoppel, and reversed and remanded for trial.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the written agreement to obtain or provide a $70,000 construction loan was sufficiently definite to support Wheeler's contract claim.

Holding

No. The agreement omitted essential loan terms and was too indefinite to be enforceable as a contract.

Reasoning

The agreement stated the principal amount, a fifteen-year term, monthly installments, and a maximum six-percent interest rate. But it did not specify the amount of the installments, the amount of interest due, how interest would be computed, or when interest would be paid. Those were essential terms of the proposed financing arrangement.

Because the asserted contract did not establish those essential obligations with sufficient certainty, the trial court properly sustained White's special exceptions to Wheeler's claim based directly on the contract.

Issue #2

Whether Wheeler's allegations stated a claim under promissory estoppel despite the underlying agreement's indefiniteness.

Holding

Yes. Wheeler alleged a promise, foreseeable and substantial reliance, and detriment sufficient to invoke promissory estoppel.

Reasoning

On review of an order sustaining special exceptions, the Court had to accept Wheeler's material allegations as true. Wheeler alleged that White assured him that financing would be available, urged him to clear the site, and promised to make the loan himself if third-party financing could not be found.

Those assurances were allegedly made to influence Wheeler's conduct and with knowledge that Wheeler would have to prepare the property before construction could begin. Wheeler further alleged that he reasonably relied by demolishing valuable income-producing buildings and readying the site, only for White to refuse to provide the promised financing.

Texas followed the principle reflected in Restatement of Contracts section 90: a promise that should reasonably induce definite and substantial action, and does induce it, is binding when enforcement is necessary to avoid injustice. Promissory estoppel does not create a fully formed contract where none existed; rather, it prevents a promisor from asserting strict legal rights, including the promise's unenforceability, when doing so would unjustly defeat reliance the promisor induced.

Issue #3

What damages may a promisee recover when promissory estoppel supplies relief for reliance on an otherwise unenforceable promise.

Holding

The promisee may recover reliance damages for foreseeable, definite, and substantial detriment, but not anticipated-profit or expectation damages.

Reasoning

The Court adopted the approach illustrated by Goodman v. Dicker: a party who incurred expenses in reliance on an assurance may recover the costs of preparing to perform, even though no enforceable contract was formed. The remedy protects the injured party against the natural consequences of the promisor's inducing conduct.

Because the promisee failed to secure a legally sufficient contract, the Court concluded that justice generally requires restoring the promisee to the position occupied before reliance, not awarding the benefits that performance of the hoped-for transaction would have produced. Wheeler therefore could seek damages measured by his reliance loss, but not lost anticipated profits from the unbuilt project.

Concurrences

Justice Greenhill

Reasoning

Justice Greenhill agreed that the judgment should be reversed, but would have reached that result through ordinary contract damages rather than promissory estoppel. In his view, the court of civil appeals had relied too broadly on Bryant v. Clark, which held a contract too indefinite for specific performance. He would not extend that holding to this materially different agreement.

Even assuming the agreement was insufficiently definite for specific performance, Justice Greenhill believed it was sufficiently definite to support an action for damages. He distinguished Texas cases denying damages after refusing specific performance because those agreements were barred by the Statute of Frauds; this agreement was not within that statute. Accordingly, he would permit Wheeler's damages action on the contract itself.