What if the Facts were Different? Suppose that 1861 Group's costs in accommodating Wild Oats's request had been $5,000 instead of $1,350,000. Would the outcome of this case have been any different? Why or why not? (Below is the sources)

Under Missouri law, to state a claim for promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must allege 1. a promise, 2. on which the plaintiff relied to its detriment, 3. in a way the promisor expected or should have expected, and 4. the reliance resulted in an injustice which can be cured only by enforcement of the promise. The promise giving rise to the cause of action must be definite, and the promise must be made in a contractual sense. [Emphasis added.]"' "' "' [The plaintiff] has alleged that: 1. Ex.) U) 4. defendant promised that if plaintiff made additional space in Lannnert Center available to accommodate an expansion. defendant would enter into a new lease with plaintiff aer a good faith negotiation of the terms; plaintiff relied on this promise to its detriment when it incurred various costs to make the expanded space available to defendant: defendant was aware of plaintiffs actions to make the expanded space available and was aware that plaintiffs actions were in response to defendant's promise: and plaintiff would suffer the injustice of uncompensated expenditures rrrade in reliance on defendant's promise if defendant's promise is not enforced. The Court finds that such allegations support each of the elements of a claim of promissory estoppeL * * "2 Decision and Remedy The federal district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The court found that the plaintiffs allegation supported each of the elements for a claim of promissory estoppel. 1861 Group, LLC v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc. Background and Facts 1861 Group, LLC, owns a shopping plaza called Lammert Center in St. Louis, Missouri. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., leased a portion of the plaza for a grocery business under a sublease with Schnuck Markets, Inc. In March 2000, Wild Oats told 1861 Group that it wanted to expand its operations and lease additional space in the plaza. As a result of its communications with 1861 Group, Wild Oats knew that the owner would incur significant costs in order to accommodate its plan to expand. During the next two years, Wild Oats promised the owner on several occasions that it would continue to negotiate in good faith to enter into a new lease. The owner, relying on Wild Oats's promises, relocated two existing Lammert Center tenants, incurring costs associated with reconfiguring the rental spaces, terminating leases, and forgiving amounts owed to it in the process. In addition to relocating other tenants, 1861 Group incurred costs in connection with efforts to rework Wild Oats's sublease. Ultimately, the parties never agreed to a new lease. 1861 Group sued Wild Oats in a federal district court, seeking to enforce the promise under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 1861 Group claimed that it was entitled to damages of not less than $1,350,000, plus interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs incurred as a result of its reliance on Wild Oats's promises. Wild Oats moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the promise to lease additional space was not sufficiently definite to support a claim for promissory estoppel. In the Words of the Court... Donald J. Stohr, District Judge