estoppel to remove the case from the operation of the Statute of Frauds, the party must show [ ] that the other party's refusal to carry out the terms of the agreement has resulted not merely in a denial of the rights which the agreement was intended to confer, but the infliction of an unjust and unconscionable injury and loss. In other words, neither the benefit of the bargain itself, nor mere inconvenience, incidental expenses, ete. short of a reliance injury so substantial and independent as to constitute an unjust and unconscionable injury and loss are sufficient to remove the claim from the operation of the Statute of Frauds. Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Kopani, 514 N.E.2d 840, 845 (Ind.Ct.App.1987) (citations omitted), trans. denied; accord Oho Valley Plastics, Inc., 687 N.E.2d at 264 (<HOLDING>); Wabash Grain, Inc. v. Bank One, 718 N.E.2d
holding that even emotional damages could constitute actual damages for purposes of  2605f1a holding that because private plaintiffs were signatories of a breached contract they were entitled to recoveiy independent from that of the corporation but denying expectancy damages claim and not addressing claim for reliance damages holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages holding that banks damages were benefit of the bargain type damages that fail to constitute a substantial and independent injury sufficient to remove borrowers claim from the operation of the statute of frauds recognizing that fdutpa cases apply a benefit of the bargain damages formula