Opinion ID: 702553
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Anros's causes of action for fraud, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation

Text: 24 Finally, Anros argues that the district court erred in granting BSC summary judgment on its causes of action for fraud, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation. Anros bases these claims on a conversation with BSC in which BSC allegedly promised Anros that it would not draw on the $5 million letter of credit. In exchange, Anros established the letter of credit. 25 The district court granted summary judgment for BSC on these claims because Anros had failed to show detrimental reliance in that the alleged exchange of promises was not supported by consideration. Anros concedes in its brief that detrimental reliance is a common element to all three causes of action, 25 but argues that consideration is not relevant to that inquiry. Under Texas law, however, [d]etrimental reliance does not consist of the performance of pre-existing obligations that are properly compensated. 26 The buyout agreement provided that Anros was to establish a $5 million letter of credit to secure its obligation to fund the sale. This is an important term in a contract negotiated at arms-length among experienced contracting parties. Anros cannot now argue that by establishing the letter of credit, it fulfilled an obligation in addition to the contractual obligations to which it had already agreed. 27 We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to BSC on these claims.