Moreover, it cannot be said under the circumstances of this case that by not selling their businesses Plaintiffs “relied on the promise to [their] detriment.” Calabro, 15 S.W.3d at 879. Nothing in the record shows that it has been to Plaintiffs’ detriment to be in business as an ACS dealer and Plaintiffs have cited no case law to the contrary. Rather, “the detriment suffered in rebanee must be substantial in an economic sense,” id, and although Plaintiffs paid a percentage of their sales to Defendants, they have also profited from the venture. In sum, the Court cannot say that “injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promisefs]” that allegedly caused Plaintiffs to remain dealers. Id. at 878; see also Piantes v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 875 F.Supp. 929, 935 (D.Mass.1995) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion Based on the foregoing, and all of
holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding that reliance is not a required element of securities fraud in a state enforcement action in idaho holding that the statute of frauds operates even when there has been reliance on a promise holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance holding that enforcement of the promise is not necessary to prevent injustice because there is no question that plaintiff has benefited tremendously from his purported reliance