equitable estoppel applies here. To demonstrate equitable estoppel, Kapp must show, inter alia, “extraordinary circumstances.” Curdo v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 33 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cm. 1994). We have never “clearly defined ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ ” but instead “rely[ ] on case law to establish its parameters.” Kurz v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 96 F.3d 1544, 1553 (3d Cir.1996). For example, we have found extraordinary circumstances where there are “affirmative acts of fraud or similarly inequitable conduct by an employer[,]” or a “network of misrepresentations that arises over an extended course of dealing between parties[,]” and we also consider “the vulnerability of particular plaintiffs.” Id. See also Pell v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 539 F.3d 292, 304 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Here, there are no extraordinary
holding that the trial court erred by imposing a duty of good faith on seattlefirst in relation to a course of dealing when that course of dealing conflicted with the express terms of the contract recognizing that course of dealing may establish limitation of damages as part of parties bargain in fact but finding record was devoid of any evidence to establish a prior course of dealing between parties holding that extraordinary family responsibilities combined with aberrational nature of conduct warranted departure holding even small amount of drugs may support inference of dealing when combined with other evidence consistent with distribution holding extraordinary circumstances when considering repeated affirmative misrepresentations combined with plaintiffs diligence over an extended course of dealing