Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • P
  • Pop’s Cones, Inc. v. Resorts Internati…Pop’s Cones, Inc. v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Pop’s Cones, Inc. v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.

Superior Court of New Jersey
704 A.2d 1321 (1998)

Pop's Cones, Inc. v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.


Pop’s Cones, Inc. (Pop’s) (plaintiff) operated a TCBY franchise in Margate, New Jersey (the Margate location). In early summer of 1994, Pop’s president, Taube, entered into discussions with Phoenix, a representative of Resorts International Hotel, Inc. (Resorts) (defendant), about relocating the franchise to a space owned by Resorts. In August, Taube drafted a written proposal addressing the lease. In mid-September, Taube asked Phoenix about the status of the lease proposal. Taube informed Phoenix that she had a renewal option at the Margate location and needed to give notice by October 1 about whether Pop’s would be staying. Having gotten no response, in late September Taube again asked about the status of the lease proposal. Phoenix informed here they were “95% there” and only needed to obtain a signature on the deal. Phoenix also told Taube to “pack up the Margate store and plan on moving.” Pop’s notified the landlord of the Margate location that it would not renew the lease. Taube then moved Pop’s equipment into storage, retained an attorney to represent Pop’s in finalizing the lease, and began planning Pop’s relocation by sending in designs for the new store. Through the months of October to December, Resorts’s attorneys entered into lease negotiations with Taube and the attorney for Pop’s. In late January, Resorts sent a letter to the attorney for Pop’s stating that Resorts was withdrawing its offer to lease space to Pop’s. Taube found another location for Pop’s, but was unable to reopen until July. Pop’s filed suit under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Resorts moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the Resort’s motion. Pop’s appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Kleiner, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 449,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial