Janz v Whitehorse Wholesale Auto Centre Ltd., 2016 YKSC 27 (CanLII) Janz entered into two lease/purchase agreements with Whitehorse for two trucks. She did not make several of the payments required by the agreements. She claimed that Whitehorse waived the making of the payments until she returned to work or received settlement money for a personal injury lawsuit, whichever occurred first. Whitehorse seized the trucks because of Janz's failure to pay. The Court accepted Janz's evidence but ruled that promissory estoppel did not apply. Why did the Court make this decision? Provide a detailed explanation