Tour Costa Rica v. Country Walkers, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Tour Costa Rica v. Country Walkers, Inc. (98-421); 171 Vt. 116; 758 A.2d 795

[Filed 28-Jul-2000]

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
to press.

No. 98-421

Tour Costa Rica Supreme Court

On Appeal from
v. Chittenden Superior Court

Country Walkers, Inc., et al. November Term, 1999

Dean B. Pineles, J.

John L. Pacht and Kerin E. Stackpole of Hoff, Curtis, Pacht, Cassidy and Frame,
P.C., Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Erik B. FitzPatrick and Robert F. O'Neill of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for
Defendants-Appellants.

PRESENT: Dooley, Morse, Johnson, and Skoglund, JJ., and Gibson, J. (Ret.)
Specially Assigned

SKOGLUND, J. Defendants Country Walkers, Inc. (CW) and Robert Maynard
(Maynard) (FN1) appeal from the superior court's denial of their V.R.C.P.
50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, following a jury verdict for
plaintiff, Tour Costa Rica (TCR), on its promissory estoppel claim. The
jury awarded plaintiff, a company that runs tours in Costa Rica, damages
after finding that defendant had breached a promise of a two-year
commitment to use TCR to develop, organize and operate Costa Rican walking
tours for defendant during that period. We affirm.

Because this is an appeal from a denial of a motion for judgment as a
matter of law, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
plaintiff. See Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118, 120-21, 730 A.2d 1086, 1089 (1999).

CW is a Vermont business, owned by Maynard and his wife, that sells
guided tours at locations around the world. In 1994, Leigh Monahan, owner
of TCR, contacted Maynard and offered to design, arrange and lead walking
tours in Costa Rica for defendant. During negotiations, Monahan explained
to Maynard that she had just incorporated the tour company and, because the
company had limited resources, she could not afford to develop specialized
tours for defendant unless she had a two-year commitment from CW to run
its Costa Rican tours through TCR. In the summer of 1994, the parties
entered into a verbal agreement under which plaintiff was to design,
arrange and lead customized walking tours in Costa Rica for CW from 1995
through 1997. Pursuant to this agreement, Monahan designed a customized
tour for CW, a task that included investigating and testing walking tours,
investigating and booking hotels, making transportation arrangements,
conducting research, checking medical facilities, writing and editing copy
for CW's brochures and drafting itineraries for clients.

In March and April 1995, plaintiff conducted two walking tours for CW.
Although other tours had been scheduled for 1995, both defendant and
plaintiff canceled some for various reasons. Between the end of April and
June of 1995, the parties discussed the details of, and scheduled the
dates for, approximately eighteen walking tours for 1996 and 1997. Due to
limited resources, plaintiff could not conduct tours for anyone else while
working with defendant and, therefore, stopped advertising and promoting
its business, did not pursue other business opportunities and, in fact,
turned down other business during this period.

In August 1995, a few weeks before the next tour was to occur,
defendant informed plaintiff that it would be using another company for
all of its future tours in Costa Rica. When challenged by plaintiff with
its promised commitment, Maynard responded: "If I did and I certainly may
have promised you a two year commitment, I apologize for not honoring it."
Notwithstanding this apology, defendant went on to operate tours in Costa
Rica using a rival company. Plaintiff was forced to cancel
transportation arrangements and hotel and restaurant reservations it had
made on defendant's behalf. Due to the suddenness of the break with CW,
plaintiff was left without tours to run during a prime tourist season, and
without sufficient time to market any new tours of its own.

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, alleging breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, and breach of
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff dismissed the
conversion count at the beginning of trial. At the close of plaintiff's
evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the remaining counts.
The court granted defendant's motion with respect to the fraud claim, but
denied it with respect to the other claims. Defendant renewed its motion
at the close of all the evidence, and the court denied it. At that time,
defendant also requested a directed verdict with regard to damages,
arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support a damage award.
The court denied this motion, as well. Subsequently, the court presented
the parties with its proposed jury instructions, which included the
following: "As to the claims of breach of contract and promissory
estoppel, plaintiff would be entitled to damages which would put it in the
same position as if the contract or promise had been fulfilled by Country
Walkers." The court then held a jury charge conference, during which both
plaintiff and defendant objected to portions of the court's proposed
instructions. Defendant, however, did not object to the above-quoted
portion.

The case went to the jury, and the jury found for defendant on the
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims, but found for plaintiff on the promissory
estoppel claim, and awarded expectation damages in the amount of
$22,520.00. Defendant then filed a motion for judgment as a matter of
law, alleging, as it had in its previous motions, that plaintiff had
failed to prove promissory estoppel and that there was insufficient
evidence to support the jury's damage award. Defendant also argued, for
the first time, that, as a matter of law, expectation damages are not
available in a promissory estoppel action. The court denied defendant's
motion. This appeal followed.

Pursuant to V.R.C.P. 50, a court may grant judgment as a matter of law
where "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
jury to find for [the nonmoving] party." V.R.C.P. 50(a)(1). When reviewing
a motion for judgment as a matter of law, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, excluding the effect of any
modifying evidence, in order to determine whether the result reached by
the jury is sound in law on the evidence produced. See Haynes v. Golub
Corp., 166 Vt. 228, 233, 692 A.2d 377, 380 (1997); Foote v. Simmonds
Precision Prods. Co., 158 Vt. 566, 570, 613 A.2d 1277, 1279 (1992). The
trial court's denial of such motion will be upheld "if any evidence fairly
or reasonably supports a lawful theory of the plaintiff." Haynes, 166 Vt.
at 233, 692 A.2d at 380. In this case, there was substantial evidence
supporting plaintiff's claims, and the trial court did not err in denying
defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Defendant first argues that plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie
case of promissory estoppel. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel:

"A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce
action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and
which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice
can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise."

Foote, 158 Vt. at 573, 613 A.2d at 1281 (quoting Restatement (Second) of
Contracts § 90(1) (1981)). The action or inaction taken in reliance on the
promise must be "'of a definite and substantial character.'" Ragosta v.
Wilder, 156 Vt. 390, 396, 592 A.2d 367, 371 (1991) (quoting Stacy v.
Merchants Bank, 144 Vt. 515, 521, 482 A.2d 61, 64 (1984)). In other words,
the promisee must have detrimentally relied on the promise. See Larose v.
Agway, Inc., 147 Vt. 1, 4, 508 A.2d 1364, 1366 (1986), overruled on other
grounds by Taylor v. National Life Ins. Co., 161 Vt. 457, 652 A.2d 466
(1993). Defendant does not seriously dispute that there was a promise or
that plaintiff did take action based on the promise. Rather, defendant
argues that plaintiff's reliance was not reasonable or detrimental, and
that this is not a case where injustice can be avoided only by enforcement
of the promise. We first address defendant's argument that plaintiff's
reliance was not reasonable.

In determining whether a plaintiff reasonably relied on a defendant's
promise, courts examine the totality of the circumstances. See In re
Bonnanzio, 91 F.3d 296, 305 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, plaintiff presented
evidence that it relied on defendant's promise of a two-year exclusive
commitment by (a) ceasing to advertise and promote the business, failing
to pursue other business opportunities, and turning down other business;
(b) making hotel and restaurant reservations and arranging for
transportation for the tours it was to operate for CW; and (c) making
purchases related to the tours it was to operate for CW. Plaintiff
suggests that this reliance was reasonable because, in negotiations with
Maynard, plaintiff made clear that it required a two-year commitment due to
its

limited resources, the time it would have to devote to develop specialized
tours for CW, and the ongoing communication between the parties as to
future dates and requirements for tours.

Defendant argues that plaintiff's reliance was not reasonable based
solely on standard industry practice that permits the cancellation of
tours upon thirty to sixty days' notice.

While there was no dispute that tours could be canceled with
appropriate notice, there was evidence that this industry practice did not
apply to the parties' two-year commitment. Monahan testified that she
and Maynard specifically agreed to the two-year time frame because she
wanted a measure of security for her fledgling company. She further
testified that it was her understanding, from negotiations with Maynard,
that the two-year commitment was unaffected by the possibility that some
scheduled tours might be canceled if, for example, too few people signed.
This understanding finds support in Maynard's proposed method of handling
deposits of people who canceled tour bookings: if guests canceled more
than sixty days before the trip, defendant would keep $50.00 of the
deposit; if the cancellation was made less than sixty but more than thirty
days prior to the trip, defendant and plaintiff would split the deposit;
and, if the cancellation was made less than thirty days before the trip,
plaintiff would be paid the full amount of the deposit.

Based on the foregoing, we find that plaintiff presented sufficient
evidence to enable the jury to conclude that plaintiff's reliance on
defendant's promise was reasonable. (FN2)

Defendant next argues that plaintiff's reliance on defendant's promise
was not detrimental. Defendant suggests that the only evidence of
detriment offered by plaintiff was Monahan's testimony concerning expenses
for a few minor equipment purchases. Plaintiff disagrees.

Plaintiff maintains that its reliance was detrimental because (1) it
lost business due to the fact that (a) it stopped advertising and
promoting the business, did not pursue other business opportunities, and
turned down other business in reliance on the parties' agreement, and (b)
after defendant breached the agreement, plaintiff had no money to
advertise or conduct other tours; (2) it spent money in preparation for
the tours it was to operate for defendant; and (3) its reputation in the
industry suffered because it had to cancel two-years' worth of reservations
it had made on behalf of defendant.

Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff stopped advertising and
promoting the business, did not pursue other business opportunities and
turned down other business, or that plaintiff's reputation was harmed.
Instead, defendant contends that (1) plaintiff would have had to arrange
for transportation and make reservations at hotels and restaurants for any
tours it arranged for CW, whether or not the tours were part of an
exclusive two-year arrangement, and (2) the money plaintiff spent in
preparation for the tours is not, in and of itself, sufficient to show
detrimental reliance.

Defendant's first argument is flawed because, as noted above, Monahan
testified that she told Maynard that plaintiff could not afford to arrange
tours for CW without an exclusive two-year agreement. There was no
evidence that plaintiff would have prepared tours for CW if the parties did
not have an exclusive two-year agreement. Defendant's second argument is
flawed because it overlooks the facts that plaintiff stopped advertising
and promoting the business, did not pursue

other business opportunities, and in fact turned down other business. In
reliance on a two-year commitment, plaintiff stopped soliciting business
from other sources and declined other bookings, a substantial change in
position for a fledgling tour business. See Ragosta, 156 Vt. at 396, 592
A.2d at . Further, plaintiff's reputation in Costa Rica's tourism
industry was damaged.

The evidence shows that, as a result of defendant's breach of the
parties' agreement, plaintiff suffered significant harm for each of the
above-mentioned reasons. Accordingly, the jury could reasonably conclude
that plaintiff's reliance on defendant's promise was detrimental.

Whether injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the
promise (Fn3) is a question of law (FN4) informed by several factors,
including:

(a) the availability and adequacy of other remedies, particularly
cancellation and restitution;
(b) the definite and substantial character of the action or forbearance
in relation to the remedy sought;
(c) the extent to which the action or forbearance corroborates
evidence of the making and terms of the promise, or the making and
terms are otherwise established by clear and convincing evidence;
(d) the reasonableness of the action or forbearance; [and]

(e) the extent to which the action or forbearance was foreseeable by
the promisor.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 139(2) (1981).

With regard to the availability and adequacy of other remedies, we
have previously stated that, "[w]hile a full range of legal damages may be
available, promissory estoppel plaintiffs are not necessarily entitled to
them as of right." Remes v. Nordic Group, Inc., 169 Vt. 37, 41, 726 A.2d 77, 79-80 (1999). Damages available in a promissory estoppel action
depend upon the circumstances of the case. See id. While the jury in the
instant case found no contract, an analysis of breach-of-contract remedies
is relevant to the determination of whether injustice can be avoided only
by enforcement of the promise. We do not, however, intend to suggest
"that promissory estoppel damages are coextensive with full contractual
remedies." Id. at 40, 726 A.2d at 79.

Expectation damages, which the jury awarded in this case, provide the
plaintiff with an amount equal to the benefit of the parties' bargain.
One potential component of expectation damages is loss of future profits.
The purpose of expectation damages is to "put the non-breaching party in
the same position it would have been [in] had the contract been fully
performed." McKinley Allsopp, Inc. v. Jetborne Int'l, Inc., No. 89 CIV.
1489 (PNL), 1990 WL 138959 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 1990). Restitution
damages seek to compensate the plaintiff for any benefit it conferred upon
the defendant as a result of the parties' contract. The purpose of
restitution damages is to return the plaintiff to the position it held
before the parties' contract. See id. Reliance damages give the
plaintiff any reasonably foreseeable costs incurred in reliance on the
contract. As with restitution, the purpose of reliance damages is to
return the plaintiff to the position it was in prior to the parties'
contract. See id.

Restitution damages are inapplicable in the instant case because there
is no evidence that plaintiff conferred any benefit on defendant as a
result of defendant's promise. Further, cancellation is inapplicable, as
defendant had already breached its promise, and cancellation would provide
no remedy for plaintiff. Reliance damages are also inappropriate because
the majority of the harm plaintiff suffered was not expenditures it made
in reliance on defendant's promise, but rather, lost profits from the
tours it had scheduled with defendant, lost potential profits because it
failed to pursue other business opportunities, and harm to its reputation.
Therefore, an award of expectation damages is the only remedy that
adequately compensates plaintiff for the harm it suffered.

As to the other factors considered, plaintiff's actions and inactions
were of a definite and substantial character. These actions and inactions
strongly corroborate both Monahan's and Maynard's testimony, as well as
documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff, regarding the making and
terms of the promise. As previously discussed, plaintiff's reliance on
defendant's promise was reasonable, and plaintiff's actions and inactions
were foreseeable by defendant. Defendant expected plaintiff to take
specific actions on defendant's behalf and to design and conduct tours to
defendant's specifications. Further, defendant was aware that plaintiff
was a new company without a lot of capital, and that it was spending much
of that capital preparing tours for defendant.

Taking the above factors into consideration, there was sufficient
evidence to allow the jury to conclude that, in this case, injustice could
be avoided only by enforcement of the promise through an award of monetary
damages.

II.

Next, defendant argues that, as a matter of law, expectation damages
are not available in a promissory estoppel case. According to defendant,
only reliance damages are available in such

cases. Plaintiff, however, notes that, although defendant had the
opportunity to object to the jury instructions and raise this argument
earlier, it failed to raise the issue until its post-judgment motion for
judgment as a matter of law. Consequently, plaintiff contends, defendant
waived the right to appeal this issue. We agree.

V.R.C.P. 50(a)(2) provides: "Motions for judgment as a matter of law
may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a
motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on
which the moving party is entitled to judgment." V.R.C.P. 50(a)(2)
(emphasis added). V.R.C.P. 50(b) provides: "Such a motion may be renewed
by service and filing not later than 10 days after entry of judgment.
Renewal of the motion is necessary to appeal from a denial of or a failure
to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law." V.R.C.P. 50(b).

As noted, in its instructions to the jury, the trial court stated
that, if the jury found for plaintiff on the promissory estoppel claim, it
could award expectation damages. (FN5) Prior to giving instructions to the
jury, the court held a conference during which both plaintiff and defendant
objected to portions of the proposed instructions. Defendant failed to
object, however, either at the charge conference or after the court
charged the jury, to the instruction that allowed the jury to award
expectation damages. Thus, defendant waived the right to appeal this
issue. See Nelson v. Percy, 149 Vt. 168, 171, 540 A.2d 1035, 1037 (1987)
(defendant waived right to raise issue because he raised it for first time
in motion for judgment as matter of law). (FN6) Defendant's attempt to
create a right of appeal

through a Rule 50(b) motion fails, as well, due to its failure to seek a
ruling from the trial court, by a pre-judgment motion, regarding the
remedies available in a promissory estoppel claim.

III.

Finally, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to
support the damage award. It contends that plaintiff was required, and
failed, to prove what its actual expenses would have been for the tours
that were canceled and that, because plaintiff did not produce evidence of
its costs, the jury was forced to speculate in calculating the damage
award.

On appeal from a jury's damage award, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the prevailing party, excluding any modifying
evidence, in order to determine whether the award was clearly erroneous.
See Brueckner, 169 Vt. at 127, 730 A.2d at 1093-94.

Defendant first argues that the award was clearly erroneous because
plaintiff was required to introduce evidence of what the actual expenses
would have been for the canceled tours, but failed to do so, relying on G
& H Holding Co. v. Dutton, 118 Vt. 406, 110 A.2d 724 (1955). According to
defendant, because plaintiff had already arranged for transportation and
reserved hotels and restaurants, costs for the tours were readily
available.

Defendant misreads our holding in Dutton. That case does not stand
for the proposition that,

in all cases, plaintiffs must produce precise evidence of their actual
expenses. In Dutton, we stated: "Where the character of the damages is
such as to be capable of being estimated by a strict money standard, the
plaintiff must give evidence thereof in dollars and cents." Id. at 411-12,
110 A.2d at 728. In explaining this rule, we subsequently stated: "This
is not a rule demanding proof to the precise penny, as defendant would
have it. . . . [I]t is merely distinguishing between those cases where
damages can be measured in money and those cases which call for the trier
of fact to translate inchoate qualities into dollar damages." A. Brown,
Inc. v. Vermont Justin Corp., 148 Vt. 192, 196, 531 A.2d 899, 902 (1987).
Defendant has not cited, and we cannot find, any case that supports its
contention that plaintiff was required to produce precise evidence of the
expenses it would have incurred had the twelve tours gone forward.

Here, plaintiff presented evidence of its costs for the two trips that
it conducted for defendant, and it presented evidence of how much it was
to be paid for the twelve trips that were canceled when defendant breached
the parties' agreement. Plaintiff requested $68,000 in damages, the
approximate value of twelve tours, with fourteen participants per tour --
the average number of participants that had been on the two tours that
plaintiff conducted for defendant -- minus the estimated costs associated
with running those tours. The jury's award of $22,250 reflected the profit
value of approximately twelve tours with ten participants per tour, the
average number of participants that had participated in CW's Costa Rican
tours after defendant breached the parties' agreement.

Moreover, as plaintiff notes, it could not provide precise data for
the twelve canceled tours because, as Monahan testified, circumstances,
and therefore prices, were subject to change at any time.

Defendant further argues that the documents plaintiff submitted to
prove its damages were insufficient because they excluded some expenses,
leaving the jury to speculate when calculating damages. Defendant had
ample opportunity, however, to cross-examine, or present independent
evidence, on this issue. As we noted in Brown, the fact that "the damage
figures are approximations or estimates" is a reflection of the weight,
not the sufficiency, of the evidence. Id. at 196-97, 531 A.2d at 902.
The jury's damage award was not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

FOR THE COURT:

_______________________________________
Associate Justice

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes

FN1. CW and its owner, Maynard, are hereinafter referred to collectively as
"defendant."

FN2. Defendant also argues that, at trial, Monahan acknowledged that
promises of exclusivity are meaningless without a binding contract, and
therefore, because the jury found for defendant on the contract claim,
defendant's promise was ineffectual. Defendant's argument, however, is
flawed for two reasons. First, in reviewing a motion for judgment as a
matter of law, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, excluding modifying evidence. Defendant's proffered evidence
is modifying evidence and cannot be considered. Second, even if we could
consider this evidence, the trial transcript does not support defendant's
assertion.

FN3. We do not literally apply the term "enforcement of the promise."
To do so would mean the only remedy available in a promissory estoppel
case is specific performance. We have never so held. See Foote, 158 Vt.
at 573-74, 613 A.2d at 1281 (stating promissory estoppel applies "if
injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise," concluding
there was sufficient evidence for jury to make finding of promissory
estoppel, and upholding jury's damage award in case where plaintiff had
been wrongfully discharged); cf. Remes v. Nordic Group, Inc., 169 Vt. 37,
41, 726 A.2d 77, 80 (1999) ("promissory estoppel damages should be
discretely designed as corrective relief to rectify the wrong committed in
a particular case").

FN4. Although this is a question of law, we apply the standard of review
previously articulated: whether, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to plaintiff, and excluding modifying evidence, the jury's
conclusion is sound in law on the evidence produced.

FN5. Specifically, the court stated: "As to the claims of breach of
contract and promissory estoppel, Plaintiff would be entitled to damages
which would put it in the same position as if the contract or promise had
been fulfilled by Country Walkers."

FN6. Defendant cites City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112
(1988), for the contention that "'the failure to object to an instruction
does not render the instruction the law of the case for purposes of
appellate review of the denial of a directed verdict or judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.'" Id. at 120 (quoting Springfield v. Kibbe,
480 U.S. 257, 264 (1987)). In Praprotnik, however, although the
petitioner had failed to object to a portion of the jury instruction, he
had raised the same issue in a pretrial motion for summary judgment, a
motion for directed verdict at the close of the respondent's case, a
motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, and a
post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law. Thus, Praprotnik is
inapposite. See Murphy v. Stowe Club Highlands, 11 Vt. L. W. 185, 188
(2000) ("defendants sought a judgment as a matter of law on the punitive
damages issue in compliance with V.R.C.P. 50(a), and renewed their motion
after entry of judgment as required by Rule 50(b). These motions
preserved the issue for appellate review, whether or not defendants also
objected to the jury instruction").

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.