Esquire Radio & Electronics V. Montgomery Ward: Case Study

881 Words4 Pages
Case Brief 1 Case Brief: Esquire Radio & Electronics v. Montgomery Ward Walter D. Seyter Legal Environment of Business LAW 529 Professor Cory March 16, 2002 Case Brief 2 Case Brief: Esquire Radio & Electronics v. Montgomery Ward 804 F.2d 787(2nd Cir. 1986) Page 199-200 Plaintiff and Defendant: Plaintiff – Esquire Radio & Electronics Defendant – Montgomery Ward Facts: “Esquire Radio & Electronics helped developed and import consumer electronics products for Montgomery Ward Co. Ward issued import orders foreign manufacturers for products and spare parts. The orders were shipped to Esquire, which inventoried both products and spare parts for Ward’s buy back.” (Corley, 2001).…show more content…
The jury awarded Esquire over $1.2 million dollars, which is the cost of the spare parts inventory. Issue Appealed: The issue is whether Ward is responsible for the spare parts in Esquire’s inventory without the presence of a written purchasing…show more content…
What are the requirements of promissory estoppel in New York? The three requirements for promissory estoppel are: “a clear and unambiguous promise”, “a reasonable and foreseeable reliance by the party to whom the promise is made”, and “an injury sustained by the party asserting the estoppel by reason of his reliance” (Corley, 2001). 2. What did Montgomery Ward do to make the court believe that it had met each of the three promissory estoppel requirements? Ward’s senior management on several occasions made verbal commitments to take the spare parts in Esquire’s inventory thus satisfying the first requirement. Ward’s continued commitments and verbal assurances to take the inventory also satisfied the second requirement. The injury of over $1.2 million worth of inventory left on Esquire’s shelves satisfied the third

More about Esquire Radio & Electronics V. Montgomery Ward: Case Study

Open Document