Cited by

Johnson Int’l, ¶ 19 (App. 1998).

Thus, courts have “refused to hold binding on the City a contract that was entered into in a manner inconsistent with charter provisions.” Johnson Int’l, ¶ 28 (App. 1998) (citing Barron G. Collier, ).

Johnson Int’l, ¶ 19 (App. 1998).

Johnson Int’l, ¶ 26 (App. 1998).

¶25 Substantively, in seeking judgment on the pleadings, the City argued that Johnson International, barred promissory estoppel claims against the City.

1947)); Johnson Int’l, -71, ¶ 26 (App. 1998).

“A party to the contract cannot prevent the fulfillment of a condition precedent and later rely on the failure of the condition to argue that no contract exists.” Johnson Int'l

Johnson Int’l, ¶ 19 (App. 1998).

Johnson *419 Int'l, , 473-74 ¶ 46, -15 (App.1998).

Co., (course of dealing does not create contract, and conduct of businesses to be interpreted in commercial context of interactions); cf. Johnson Int’l, -12 (App. 1998) (parties may be contractually bound if intent to do so clear from surrounding circumstances and parties‟ conduct, and there has been mutual assent).

¶ 25 The second ease, Johnson International, , is also distinguishable.

Comm’n, , 521 ¶ 10, Johnson Int’l, , 470-71 ¶ 26, -12 (App.1998); AROK Constr.

See Johnson Int’l, -71, ¶ 26 , -12 (App.1998).

“Promissory estoppel is not a theory of contract liability, but [is] instead a replacement for a contract when parties are unable to reach a mutual agreement.” Johnson Intern., ¶ 49

Johnson International, -74, ¶ 46 , -15 (App.1998).