Case Title: Tour Costa Rica v. Country Walkers, Inc.

Citation: 171 Vt. 116, 758 A.2d 795

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2000-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Tour Costa Rica v. Country Walkers, Inc. (98-421); 171 Vt. 116; 758 A.2d 795

[Filed 28-Jul-2000]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-421

Tour Costa Rica	                                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Chittenden Superior Court

Country Walkers, Inc., et al.	                 November Term, 1999

Dean B. Pineles, J.

John L. Pacht and Kerin E. Stackpole of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy and Frame, 
  P.C., Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Erik B. FitzPatrick and Robert F. O'Neill of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for 
  Defendants-Appellants.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson, and Skoglund, JJ., and Gibson, J. (Ret.) 
          Specially Assigned

       SKOGLUND, J.  Defendants Country Walkers, Inc. (CW) and Robert Maynard
  (Maynard) (FN1) appeal from the superior court's denial of their V.R.C.P.
  50(b) motion for judgment as a matter  of law, following a jury verdict for
  plaintiff, Tour Costa Rica (TCR), on its promissory estoppel  claim.  The
  jury awarded plaintiff, a company that runs tours in Costa Rica, damages
  after finding  that defendant had breached a promise of a two-year
  commitment to use TCR to develop, organize  and operate Costa Rican walking
  tours for defendant during that period.  We affirm.

 

       Because this is an appeal from a denial of a motion for judgment as a
  matter of law, we view  the evidence in the light most favorable to
  plaintiff.  See Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118,  120-21,