Opinion ID: 38988
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the harm is suffered because of reliance

Text: of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. 23 the coils, was injured. The Browsville court held that this was a valid basis on which to hold the defendant liable. Browsville has no relevance to the instant case. Here there is no evidence that GMAC was negligent with respect to either Wentwood Hartford or Wentwood St. James, nor did it undertake to perform any services to them which it did not perform.10 Again, as previously explained, GMAC’s notification to Wentwood Hartford, and its notification to Wentwood St. James, do not constitute GMAC’s having undertaken the rendition of the service of notification to Wentwood Westside concerning Woodside Village. See also note 8 supra and accompanying text. There is no summary judgment evidence sufficient to support a judgment that GMAC breached a common law duty to Wentwood.