Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. It appears that the district court dismissed the promissory estoppel claim because it determined that recovery on a promissory estoppel claim is incompatible with recovery on a contract claim. However, counsel may raise distinctly different claims for relief that are based on different facts and legal theories. Under Minnesota law, the pleading of broad general statements that may be conclusory is permitted. The district court's reasoning for dismissing the promissory estoppel claim is in error.
Promissory estoppel operates to imply a contract in law where none exists in fact.
When a promise is not in plain contradiction of a contract or, if contradictory, when it is accompanied by misrepresentations of other material facts, the question of reasonable reliance is for the trier of fact. River Bluff Dev. Therefore, the district court's decision regarding promissory estoppel is reversed. Fraud Appellants argue that they were defrauded and induced to stay at 3M and convinced not to seek other employment opportunities. They also argue that they were defrauded out of actual salary dollars and benefits equivalent to those of the managers on the opposite side of the Dual Ladder, as they were promised.