Mr. Simmons owned as well as operated a bakery and sought to obtain a supermarket franchise with Cardinal Stores. Cardinal Stores guaranteed Simmons that his $18,000 was adequate and advised him to acquire and operate a small store to improvement experience. Three months later Cardinal Stores instructed him to sell that store with the assurance that he would be given a larger store. Simmons was unwilling to miss the summer tourist season however sold the store on Cardinal's assurances.

A few months later Cardinal told Simmons everything is ready to go. Get your money together as well as we are set. Cardinal told Simmons to increase the rest of his financial contribution by trade his bakery. Simmons traded the bakery for $10,000 and took a job on the night shift at a local bakery.

Cardinal next conversant Simmons that he would have to contribute a greater amount of money. Simmons gotten the money from his father-in-law. Cardinal then expressed Simmons that he would have to sign an agreement that the loan from his father-in-law was either a gift or a loan subordinate to all general creditors. Negotiations ended and Cardinal refused to sell Simmons the franchise. Simmons litigated Cardinal for reliance damages, lost profits and expenses.

Cardinal's defence was that the parties had never reached agreement on vital factors necessary to create a valid contract. What must the court's judgment in this case be?

Deliberate the legal issues that arise in this case- Is there consideration to support this agreement? Can the court impose this agreement in equity? What theory or theories smear to the facts of this case?