Patrick Oil would not subsequently deny having received notice of the existence of the security interest. If that was the sum total of Motobecane’s position, it might satisfy the conditions for obtaining an estoppel to this extent. However, Motobecane further argues that the acknowledgement now prevents defendants from denying that they had an obligation to protect Motobecane’s security interest. No such promise appears in the September 28 letter, nor can the court infer one from the plain meaning of the language of the letter. An estoppel can not rest upon an alleged promise which the court can not discern from the statements made by the defendant, cf. Association of Hebrew Teachers of Metropolitan Detroit v. Jewish Welfare Federation of Detroit, 62 Mich.App. 54, 233 N.W.2d 184 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The court therefore holds that defendant’s
holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation holding that the obligation does not terminate upon death holding that estoppel will not lie upon a promise that is too indefinite to permit the court to determine the scope of the alleged obligation holding that the court has an affirmative obligation to ensure that it is acting within the scope of its jurisdictional authority