Cosgrove v. Bartolotta
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
150 F.3d 729 (1998)
Facts
Joseph Bartolotta (defendant) asked Barry Cosgrove (plaintiff), a friend who worked as a corporate lawyer, to assist him with opening a restaurant. Bartolotta asked Cosgrove for a $100,000 loan as well as financial and legal advice. He promised to repay the loan with interest within three years and to give Cosgrove a 19 percent ownership stake in the venture. Bartolotta received Cosgrove’s legal assistance and obtained bank financing with the help of Cosgrove’s financial pledge. Cosgrove never provided the loan, however, because Bartolotta used an alternative source of financing. Bartolotta did not give Cosgrove an ownership interest in the business. After the restaurant proved successful, Cosgrove filed suit against Bartolotta. A jury awarded Cosgrove $117,000 for promissory estoppel, $17,000 for unjust enrichment, and $1,000 for misrepresentation. On Bartolotta’s motion, the court ruled in his favor on the promissory estoppel claim, taking away the jury verdict on that issue. The verdicts regarding misrepresentation and unjust enrichment were allowed to stand. Cosgrove appealed the judgment regarding promissory estoppel. Bartolotta appealed the judgments regarding misrepresentation and unjust enrichment but did not take specific issue with any of the amounts awarded.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 705,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
