business. Insisting that promissory estoppel is essentially an equitable doctrine, Aliquippa Forge maintains that the appropriate limitations period is six years under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5527. This residual provision states that “[a]ny civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation specified in this sub-chapter nor excluded from the application of a period of limitation by section 5531 (relating to no limitation) must be commenced within six years.” § 5527. Although we concede that promissory estoppel has its roots in equity (see generally Fried v. Fisher, 328 Pa. 497, 501, 196 A. 39, 41 (1938)), we conclude that promissory estoppel falls under the umbrella of contract law. See Weber v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pa., 415 Pa. 292, 294, 203 A.2d 554, 555 (1964)(<HOLDING>). As explained above, promissory estoppel
recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract holding failure to pay a debt due under a promissory note is a breach of contract claim under florida law holding that the issue of whether a contract exists under promissory estoppel is grounded in contract law