Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Footwear Unlimited, Inc. v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291 (1984)

Citation
Footwear Unlimited, Inc. v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291 (1984)
Parent Document
Footwear Unlimited, Inc. v. Katzenberg, 683 S.W.2d 291 (1984)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1984-12-18

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text

395 chars
Appellant concedes that its counterclaim stated a cause of action in promissory es-toppel. This was his position in the trial court and is still his position on appeal. In granting respondent a new trial, the trial court found that Instruction No. 12 was erroneous because it directed a verdict based upon a theory of fraud which was not supported by the evidence. We agree with the trial court.