Wilson v. J.G. Bailey Corp.
Appellant, Mark Wilson, doing business as Marks Express Lube, filed an action against his landlord, respondents, J.G. Bailey Corporation and James G. Bailey, Sr., alleging that respondents were estopped from refusing to renew Wilsons lease. Following a bench trial, the court ruled in respondents favor. The court found that Wilson had failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, both that respondents made a clear, unambiguous and unconditional promise to renew Wilsons lease and that Wilson reasonably and foreseeably relied on this promise to his detriment.
Wilson contends the evidence is insufficient to support the trial courts decision. Wilson argues that he reasonably relied on respondents promise that it would be business as usual with respect to renewing the lease and suffered detriment in that he did not begin the process of moving his business to a new location. Accordingly, Wilson asserts, the trial court should have applied promissory estoppel. As discussed below, the trial courts findings are supported by the record. Thus, the judgment affirmed.
Comments on Wilson v. J.G. Bailey Corp.