Opinion ID: 688718
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Recovery on the TLP.

Text: 23 The district court concluded that the evidence warranted recovery only under a theory of promissory estoppel. In the discussion of those promises upon which it predicated the liability determination, however, the district court did not separately address the impact, if any, of the TLP. The district court's only mention of the TLP was that it was amended to increase the MTL from $200,000 to $700,000, but not amended to increase the MTL to $1,000,000. See 831 F.Supp. at 99, 102. 24 Cyberchron argues on appeal that the TLP provides a separate basis for recovery. Calldata responds that this claim was not presented below, but we reject this contention. Among other things, Cyberchron's witness Paul explicitly testified concerning his view that the TLP provided a basis for recovery if Cyberchron was terminated for any reason. 25 We do not regard the TLP, however, as providing any separate ground for recovery by Cyberchron. The TLP applies, by its terms, only if this purchase order is terminated, and accordingly appears to be premised upon the Purchase Order's initially becoming a valid contract. As the district court correctly concluded, this never occurred because the parties never reached agreement regarding the material terms of weights and weight penalties. 26 Further, the TLP explicitly provided that: Grumman may, by written notice to [Cyberchron], unilaterally ... (ii) delete this clause in its entirety. It is difficult to perceive how Cyberchron could ever place any reasonable reliance upon the TLP in view of this provision, or could reasonably conclude that a unilaterally terminable clause could impose upon Calldata or Grumman an obligation to reimburse Cyberchron's costs if the negotiations failed. 27 Finally, because agreement was never reached regarding the Purchase Order, of which the TLP was a part, the TLP could only provide a separate basis for recovery under a theory of promissory estoppel. As will appear, however, the first element of promissory estoppel is a clear and unambiguous promise. As the preceding discussion makes clear, the TLP does not satisfy this requirement. 28