the verification letters clearly stated that Sterling intended to rely upon the verifications in order to provide financing to NSE. In addition, Small's designated affidavit stated that Sterling relies on the verification letters before purchasing invoices to reduce or eliminate its assumed risk of nonpayment by an account debtor. Having found both a promise and detrimental reliance, we find that promissory estoppel applies in this case and that Ham-mert's is estopped to deny payment on Invoice 3 and place payment restrictions on the payment for Invoice 2. Although we have found no similar Indiana cases, our result is consistent with similar case law from other jurisdictions. See Quantum Corporate Funding Ltd. v. L.P.G. Associates, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 320, 323, 667 N.Y.S.2d 702 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Dimmitt & Owens Financial. Inc. v. Realtek
holding that account debtors assurance to factor gives rise to an estoppel predicated upon the factors reliance on that assurance in purchasing the assignment from the vendor holding that the existence of a written contract gives rise to the presumption that the parties have reduced their prior agreements to writing holding that the unique nature of psychotherapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty of care to the patient holding that failure to record an assignment does not give rise to a cause of action recognizing that the nature of the therapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty  to refrain from  causing emotional or mental harm to the patient