Instead, Eisele relies on unspecified conversations in which his nieces allegedly stated that he would receive a commission. However, Eisele failed to rebut the affidavits of his nieces which stated that references to a commission were made in the context of the understanding that Eisele would be receiving compensation from Jellis and Neltje. Finally, Eisele's actions were a direct violation of public policy. There is nothing in the record which supports Eisele's equitable claim. Neither is there any evidence that services were performed under circumstances in which appellees were reasonably notified of an expectation of payment.
Summary judgment is affirmed.