of the assets by firestone was commercially reasonable under the uniform commercial code with respect to the summary judgment motion rant on my counter claim a promissory estoppel the lower court the district court said that my reliance on commitments by mr dan mcallister a vice president of firestone was on a recent poll that the agreement that funding would be made on prior loans on the same basis as prior believe that my reliance was reasonable given the history and communications and commitments that were made over a period of time and all of those commitments were honored by firestone all of them that were made by dan mcallister the business that these loans applied to was called route laundry business that's where laundry machines are placed in apartment buildings the apartment building owners pick up the space expense and utility expense and our side picked up the cost of the machines in the repair and maintenance of the machines the revenues from those machines were split firestone was first approached by the broker that i retained in april of two thousand firestone over the next couple months did extensive review of financials came back to me with numerous questions i wanted to know the operations the customer all the aspects of the business and then in june then mcalister of the vice president of development for firestone came to visit me went through much of the same information and visited my facilities my three businesses ask questions it's where we were going and at the end of that conversation said when he got back to the office he would make sure that that loan was funded that's exactly what happened we continued to proceed firestone and through damage callous or had numerous meetings with me communication frequently with respect to what we were doing how much machinery this going to be needed for a customer a primary customer of g h m a woman leasing and in november i told him i would be submitting the second loan based on the weapon that we had discussed and had been purchased he told me i should submit a loan that that loan would be funded promptly and it was later in the ephemera i met with mr mcallister because i wanted to curtail seemed i wanted to curtail them because one of the business is a commercial laundry business it built a new fat facility and the excess cash flow that was being used from that business to purchase equipment for j h m m m and leasing was going to be tied up with the expansion of that business and the construction cost mr mcallister said that he would set up a line of credit to discussions that we had before in early january he told me that he would be delayed in setting up the line of credit because it was working on a different my name program for firestone and it was taking more time to set that up i submitted another loan application or another funding application in february in accordance with destruction that one was for as much as the first two loans there was no problem firestone fund at that executed documents in accordance with the same type of documents that were used the first two times all the way through every commitment that mr mcallister made was honored then we get to the point in april where he leaves firestone and all of sudden i'm dealing with the president of firestone in a meeting in june president firestone said that the funding application that i had submitted in april there were two of them would not be honored he then said he would after meeting with me and reviewing the facilities he said he would honor one of them he was aware what the consequences would be of not funding that i wouldn't be able to fame a tax which was the provider of the woman and the company that had the distribution rights with me things would lose those rights and the consequences that  commercially reasonable the woman placed on route is has a tire highest value by generating money in the apartment buildings that it's placed in firestone after it took possession of the equipment that it could not be sold as a route because the firestone had failed to maintain them in that field to repair the weapon and therefore i didn't want firestone to sell it as a route anymore i've reserve please the court ran away for the appellee firestone financial this goes let me ask you initially are we are we to look at the illinois law or massachusetts law i think you both agree that massachusetts law governs now we have your honor yes  to the to the counterclaim and i think from that point going for it we've searched the simply apply massachusetts law but i think the result would be the same whether under illinois or massachusetts law and  breach of contract action of the appellant essentially agrees that the four loans were entered and he agrees that he didn't make the payments as required but he but he claims is this failure was the result of firestone's breach and so for that reason the focus of our argument in the focus my presentation today is with respect to the counter claim for promissory estoppel in the appellants briefing his first issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing his counter claim and that's not an accurate statement of what happened in the district court the district court tonight dismissed the counter claim they just recorded turman that firestone was entitled to summary judgment and so even in his is briefing before this court he seems to be focused on this rule twelve argument that he met all the pleading requirements but the real question was to be addressed under rule fifty six it was whether the appellant raised any genuine issues or weight raised genuine issues of material fact and it's our position that the  correctly concluded that he did not with respect to the promissory estoppel claim mr meyer had to raise genuine issues of fact with respect to each of the four elements and he could not raise a genuine issue with respect mcalister was deposed in this case he denied promised seen mr meyer that that firestone would make these loans he denied telling mr meyer that he had was involved in the credit department or had any underwriting authority not refute that testimony and additionally mr meyer in his briefing and today acknowledged that he understood the friar stone had accrued review process that he was contacted by people from firestone to meet ask questions about his l request he had a similar documents to firestone it assim it vendor invoices and firestone do not funded the loans until they received the signed contract but despite this history he contends that firestone changed its normal process and entered into oral promise and additionally the oral promise seemed to evolve throughout the course of the litigation list initially he claimed that firestone promised five hundred thousand our line of credit and then later became this idea that firestone agreed to fund the specific loan package so the fact that the alleged an invidious promise changed in place that it wasn't such an unambiguous promise additionally mr buyer contends that he was told by d m accounts tr that firestone firestone would fund the loan requests and as this court determined classic cheesecakes is a distinct difference between telling someone the loan would be approved and telling someone the loan had been approved so this court should apply its own ruling it's classic cheesecake and determine that the district court correctly determined that there was no on him to give us promise to read to the next element of whether the reliance was reasonable their reliance was not reasonable because none of the essential terms of the loan had been discussed there's no discussion regarding the loan amount the repayment term the interest rates or absent these essential terms there's no reason to believe that there is a binding agreement additionally as as i mentioned mr meyer understood from the first three loans that firestone required a written loan documents required credit reviewer cryer invoices from the from the vendor so it was unreasonable for mr meyer to conclude that firestone had changed its course of dealing and somehow agreed to waive its credit review process moreover it's common practice in the linen industry to have sort of on the front end salesperson that develops the relationship with the customer and then on the back end have the credit department that reviews the credit worthiness of the loan request and mr meyer knew this he knew this from his years in the laundry business he you know as  mentioned he operated three different entities g h him dolphin admired dolphin in myer head already pledged all their assets to other other lenders including eastern funding at the time that firestone came into the picture he knew from his prior years in it as  attorney prior to being disbarred believe he was a business lawyer so he has an understanding of of contracts and of the linnean practices so given this background was unreasonable for him to conclude that firestone was going to change how it operated to make these loans on his behalf turning to the next element of foreseeability again firestone only directly contract it with him yet the appellant is continuing that losses were suffered by all three entities him dolphin in my or inner prices in additionally he is continuing that because firestone declined to make a three thousand dollar loan that there was millions and millions of dollars in lost profits suffered by huge each entity and it simply wasn't foreseeable to firestone that those types of damages would occur from a thirty thousand dollars loan package and was in foreseeable the firestone that the mr  options additionally he the the main source of the of the loss was this fact that make tag allegedly placed dolphin on a credit hold and there was no evidence in the record of a relationship with me today there is no issue a little bit further what he is essentially contending is that because firestone orally promised a loan to g h him that his other into t dolfin of vendor of laundry equipment essentially transferred that equipment to g h him without any payment without any contract without it in consideration in a normal situation that just wouldn't happen of in or wouldn't give away it's collateral but it only happened here because dolphin and g h in both own by john meyer and  have proven that was foreseeable to firestone with respect to the damages that are alleged in this case the damages could not be established with sufficient certainty there was nothing in the record regarding the business performance of these of these three entities as he's alleging lost profits and those are very difficult to prove without any financial statements and the fact is none of the three entities file tax returns in two thousand and twelve or two thousand and thirteen there were no financial statements made available during the course of the litigation to the extent there were financial statements created for the companies while they operated they were apparently lost because of nick email account being closer because of an eviction proceeding moreover  the only evidence offered was mr myers own f a david and the affidavit included information as to hypothetical into remote and speculative to be reliable essentially contends without any without any foundation any evidence that the laundry machines would have lasted ten years that he would have necessarily generated two hundred fifty thousand dollars in revenue from the use of those machines and the only two hundred fifty thousand dollars seem to be pulled out of thin air that number was equal to the amount that they firestone financed that or simply no correlation between the amount to be financed and the amount that could be expected to be generated as revenue of the calculations also didn't account for operating expenses or taxes or depreciation or other other items and then just briefly to his to his defense regarding the sale the business firestone did not have any firestone only had a security interest in the collateral the sa me address several of the things that the council of firestone that's brought up first with respect to the collateral claims that the firestone didn't have the ability to sell the road agreement firestone had the only security interest to sell the equipment with that rod agreed next he said that the two hundred fifty thousand dollars was pulled out of the  paid on a current basis and there was positive cash flow so from that we know that the loans would have been paid if the operations had been able to continue and that's what gives rise to the revenues that he said that the obligation or commitment was that the loan would be funded in the future not that it's already been approved the reason that the loans couldn't already be approved was that they were dependent on the amount of equipment that was purchased and firestone and then mcalister were part of the in their communications they knew what equipment it's fee for sister to be purchased for the and the amount of the from and determine the value of the funding to be submitted and provided by firestone so he said that the other aspects that were they based on the first two loans were the amount of interest and yes there was a slight difference in the amount of interest in the first two loans between the first and the second but the third loan was based on the same interest rate as a second loan so apparently firestone had no problem with that has been confusing because it generated the third loan which was based on the commitment of