Court Opinion

ID: 9705932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:26:56.504578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:22.694033
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(dissenting). I cannot join in the Court’s disposition of this case.
Professor Corbin stated that "the form and extent of the remedy to be applied” in an action for promissory estoppel is flexible and is "dependent on the circumstances of the individual case”.1 The remedy awarded may be specific performance, restitution, quantum meruit, reimbursement of expenditures and losses, or full damages, which may include loss of profits.
The question whether The Vogue may recover lost profits on the evidence presented includes the preliminary question of whether lost profits may be recovered at all. In granting leave to appeal on "the application of Fera v Village Plaza, Inc, 396 Mich 639 [242 NW2d 372] (1976), to the record developed in this case”, the Court necessarily implicated and should reach and decide that preliminary question. This case has already been to the Court of Appeals twice. Remanding it for a third hearing, with the possibility of further review in this Court, places an undue burden on the litigants.
Coleman, J., concurred with Levin, J.

 1A Corbin on Contracts, § 205, pp 236 et seq.