continued to promise an accounting and negotiate the terms of the parties’ relationship, the only supporting evidence it submitted in opposition to Conoco’s motion was an affidavit from its owner, Nick Badwey, which merely described the alleged breaches in 2003 and the termination letter Conoco sent in October 2006, and reiterated that Conoco never provided the accounting. See Aplt. App. at 154-55. Nothing in the affidavit provided factual support for Badwey’s tolling argument sufficient to defeat summary judgment. And we see no significance in Conoco’s termination of a written contract in 2007. Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that Conoco’s alleged promise to provide an accounting was insufficient to invoke equitable estoppel. See Sweet v. Hentig, 24 Kan. 497 (1880) (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the district court is
recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa holding that even continued promises to correct a wrong known to a plaintiff do not warrant the application of equitable estoppel holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel