simply do not constitute promises, much less clear and definite ones. The only remaining alleged promise is the statement summarizing the provisions of the Limited Partnership Agreement with regard to dissolution. While the statement qualifies as a clear and definite promise, it cannot be the basis for a promissory estoppel claim because the pertinent terms were set out in binding fashion in the Limited Partnership Agreement. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that a party may not premise a promissory estoppel claim on pre-contractual representations where the parties reduce their agreement to a written contract. N. Warehousing, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Educ., 475 Mich. 859, 714 N.W.2d 287 (2006). See also Novak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 285 Mich.App. 675, 599 N.W.2d 546, 552 (1999) (<HOLDING>). We have applied the same rule in a case
holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract holding that plaintiff could not have reasonably relied on an oral representation that the atwill provision of his employment contract did not apply to him when he entered into the contract that expressly contradicted the oral representations holding that a person could not reasonably rely on oral representations that contradict a written document holding that it is unreasonable for plaintiffs to rely on oral representations made before a contract when the contract contained a clause which expressed