addressed to another party (the promisee) that the promisor will perform some action or refrain from some action in the future. Kacak, 869 N.E.2d at 1242. Here, we agree with Sterling that the Invoice 2 and 3 verification letters wherein Hammert's confirmed that NSE's work, product or service was complete and accepted and there were no joint check requests, offsets, credits, debits or counterclaims of any kind, and that the job was not subject to any payment bonds, contractors bonds, or other bonded obligations were promises that Hammert's would not assert claims or defenses to reduce the value of the invoices. As to the second argument that there is no detrimental reliance in this case, our review of the designated material reveals stries, 90 Mich.App. 429, 280 N.W.2d 827, 829 (1979) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we
holding that a creditor could be liable for the misrepresentations in a letter mailed by a collection agency hired to send the letter holding that account debtor that completed verification letter estopped to deny liability holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that  1823e does not apply to a claim relating to a letter of credit a letter of credit is a liability not an asset holding acceptance of settlement estopped plaintiff from subsequent suit