Elizabeth M. Stewart was a highly talented salesperson for Cendant Mobility Services Corporation. Stewart’s husband was also employed by Cendant as an executive in the operations department. During a major corporate reorganization, Cendant terminated Stewart’s husband. Shortly thereafter, Stewart spoke with James Simon, Cendant’s executive vice president of sales, regarding her concerns about how her employment with Cendant might be affected if her husband ultimately found employment with a competitor. Simon told Stewart that her husband’s employment would have no bearing on her employment with Cendant and that she had no reason to be concerned about her status at Cendant because she was a highly valued employee. On the basis of these assurances, Stewart continued in her position with Cendant and did not pursue other employment opportunities. Nearly one year after Cendant’s reorganization, Cendant learned that Stewart’s husband was working for a competitor and subsequently reduced her duties and limited her interaction with clients. Cendant also requested that Stewart verbally agree to a document that purported to delineate her obligations to Cendant in relation to her husband’s work on behalf of any competitor of Cendant. When Stewart declined to agree to this document, Cendant terminated her employment. Stewart sued Cendant claiming that she had relied to her detriment on Simon’s promise that her employment with Cendant would not be affected adversely by her husband’s probable future employment with a competitor. How should the court rule? [Stewart v. Cendant Mobility Services Corp., 836 A.2d 736 (Conn. 2003).]