Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata

Cyberchron Corp. v. Calldata

• Cyberchron was in negotiations to produce computer defense equipment, some disagreement over weight.
• Never came to definitive contract. Lower court found that, even though there was never a contract, Cyberchron could get some reliance damages.
• Court awarded damages on basis of Promissory Estoppel , looks at whether there was clear and foreseeable reliance.
• Court find that Calldata had also exerted pressure–unconscionable injury.
• TIAA v. Tribune–TIAA had given letter of intent and tried to pull out, court fund that contract existed even though it was not yet reflected in final agreement.
• At same time the Calldata was telling Cyberchron to keep working, it was negotiating with another party.
• Generally no obligation to disclose something you know but other party does not know in contracting process–but court can view things in terms of good faith, bad faith, and Unconscionability .
• Basis of decision is not that there was a contract, but that there was reliance.

Conclusion

Notes

See Also

References and Further Reading

About the Author/s and Reviewer/s

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Promissory Estoppel, Unconscionability.


Posted

in

, , ,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *