| Court: | Oregon Court of Appeals |
| Facts: | The Ehlers recruited Neiss to come and work in their optometry office. They promised a 30% share of the business in consideration of her work. There was a date by which this should have been granted, but it never actually happened. |
| Posture: | Suit for breach of contract. Summary judgment for former employer, appealed. |
| Issue: | Is the doctrine of promissory estoppel applicable when the promise involved is an agreement to agree, or is too indefinite or incomplete for enforcement as a contract? |
| Holding: | Reversed and remanded for trial. |
| Rule: | Their failure to agree to new terms left the original terms intact. True, this was only an agreement to agree, but promissory estoppel could apply. This means there are issues here that a jury must decide. |
| Reasoning: | Promissory estoppel isn't just for breach of promise: it's for the harm done when a promise induces reliance. |
| Dicta: | |