ORMOND, J.

The inclination of my mind, is, that the loss and inconvenience, which the plaintiff sustained in breaking up, and moving to the defendant’s, a distance of sixty miles, is a sufficient consideration to support the promise, to furnish her with a house, and land to cultivate, until she could raise her family. My brothers, however think, that the promise on the part of the defendant, was a mere gratuity, and that an action will not lie for its breach. The judgment of the Court below must therefore be reversed, pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

MEAD, J.

[¶ 1] Teresa L. Harvey appeals from a judgment entered by the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Hjelm, J.) in favor of Jeffrey B. Dow Sr. and Kathryn L. Dow on Harvey’s complaint seeking to compel the Dows to convey to her the land on which she built a house, or for damages based on the value of the house. Harvey contends that she is entitled to a judgment on theories of promissory estoppel or the existence of a confidential relationship. We note that the findings of the Superior Court do not address the actions of the Dows beyond their generalized statements of intent and the possible application of section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts thereto. We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.1

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 2] Jeffrey Dow Sr. and Kathryn Dow are the parents of Teresa Harvey. The Dows own 125 acres of land in Corinth in two adjoining parcels, one fifty acres and the other seventy-five acres. They, their daughter Teresa, and their son Jeffrey Dow Jr. each have homes on the property. From the time they were young, Teresa and her brother talked about the houses they would eventually like to build on the homestead; Teresa said she wanted her home to be located near a spring, close to where it now sits. For their part, the Dows saw the land as their children’s heritage that would be left to them or given to them when they were older. Jeffrey Sr. testified that when the children were teenagers, he believed that his wife had promised them some land in the future, and the subject of the children living on the homestead was commonly discussed within the family.

[¶ 3] The Superior Court found that the Dows had a general, non-specific plan to transfer land to the children at some undetermined time. In the court’s words, the “evidence at most reveals that Jeffrey Sr. expressed an intention to enter into an agreement to convey property sometime in the future,” and “Kathryn had made it clear that eventually, both Teresa and Jeffrey Jr. would end up with all or part of the two parcels.”

[¶ 4] In 1999, Teresa and her future husband, Jarrod Harvey, installed a mobile home on her parents’ land with their permission at the location where her brother’s mobile home is now located. She did not pay rent and did not ask her parents for a deed. Later, she and Jarrod built a garage near the mobile home, again with the Dows’ permission.

*324[¶ 5] Around January 2003, Teresa and Jarrod, by then married, decided to build a house on the lot where their mobile home then stood. At the Harveys’ request, the Dows agreed to use their home equity line of credit to initially finance the house. At trial, Teresa testified that part of the plan for repaying her parents included having them convey the building site to her by deed once the house was completed. Jeffrey Sr. denied any discussion of a deed at that time. In March 2003, Jarrod Harvey died in a motorcycle accident. Following his death, Teresa decided to finance the house with life insurance proceeds rather than use her parents’ home equity line.

[¶ 6] When it came time to do site preparation work for the new house, Teresa, her father, and her grandfather determined that it would cost no more to build further back on the property where Teresa had always wanted her house to be. Jeffrey Sr. agreed that she could build the house at its current site. Before construction began, Teresa and Jeffrey Sr. went to obtain a building permit from the town. There was no discussion of Teresa obtaining a deed at that point; she testified at trial that she did not ask her father for one directly because she did not need it then. The town initially denied Teresa a permit because she would not have the requisite amount of road frontage. A permit was eventually issued to Jeffrey Sr. for him to build another house on his property. Teresa testified that her father told her he would execute a deed to her for the property after the house was built; Jeffrey Sr. said there was no discussion about a deed.

[¶ 7] Construction of the new house began in the summer of 2003 and was completed in May 2004 at a cost to Teresa of about $200,000. Jeffrey Sr. did a substantial amount of the construction himself, including much of the foundation work, and the carpentry, and helped to get underground electrical lines installed. In January 2004, while construction of the house was underway, Teresa lent $25,000 to her brother, Jeffrey Dow Jr. The record indicates that by the spring of 2004, around the time the house was completed, the relationship between Teresa and her parents and brother began to deteriorate over when and how the loan from Teresa to Jeffrey was to be repaid, and over the Dows’ dissatisfaction with Teresa’s partner, who lived with her. Eventually Teresa sued Jeffrey Jr. for the money, and the Dows filed a grandparents’ rights action to see Teresa’s children.

[¶ 8] At some point after moving into her new house, Teresa began to ask Jeffrey Sr. for a deed so that she could obtain a mortgage to finance other projects. After a period of discussion, it became clear that the Dows were not going to execute a deed. At the time of trial, Teresa was paying the taxes on the house itself, but she was not paying the property taxes or any rent. Both Kathryn Dow and Jeffrey Jr. testified that they had no knowledge of Jeffrey Sr. ever offering or agreeing to deed any land to Teresa.

[¶ 9] In March 2006, Teresa filed a seven-count complaint in the Superior Court, primarily seeking a judgment compelling the Dows to convey unspecified real property to her, or for damages on her claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The Dows counterclaimed, seeking a judgment declaring that Teresa had no rights in their property. Following a two-day bench trial, the court found for the Dows on the real property claims and on their request for a declaratory judgment. Based on her assertion that the court failed to address whether she was entitled to a judgment on a theory of promissory estoppel, Teresa filed motions for further findings, to amend the judgment, and for a new trial. In a writ*325ten decision, the court recognized that Teresa’s argument was properly raised and then rejected it, finding that “[the Dows’] statements were not promises that could be enforced even if they were the subject of detrimental rebanee,” and concluding that “the plaintiffs have not estab-bshed that Harvey received an offer or promise that can be enforced in this action.” This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Existence of an Enforceable Promise

[¶ 10] Teresa contends that the Dows, having made general promises to convey land to her at some point and then assenting to her building a $200,000 house on their property in rebanee on those promises, are now estopped from asserting that she has no rights to the land the house is located on. The Superior Court agreed that the Dows made general promises to convey land to Teresa, but concluded that they were too indefinite to enforce because there was no agreement on basic elements such as the boundaries or size of the property involved. We review the court’s factual findings for clear error, and its legal conclusion that those facts do not make out a claim of promissory estoppel de novo. Daigle Commercial Group, Inc. v. St. Laurent, 1999 ME 107, ¶ 13, 734 A.2d 667, 672.

[¶ 11] The doctrine of promissory estoppel “applies to promises that are otherwise unenforceable,” and is “invoked to enforce [such] promises ... so as to avoid injustice.” Id. ¶ 14, 734 A.2d at 672 (quotation marks omitted); Cottle Enters., Inc. v. Town of Farmington, 1997 ME 78, ¶ 17 n. 6, 693 A.2d 330, 335. It is an accepted doctrine in Maine. June Roberts Agency, Inc. v. Venture Props., Inc., 676 A.2d 46, 49 (Me.1996). We have adopted the definition of promissory estoppel set out in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which states:

A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981); Bracale v. Gibbs, 2007 ME 7, ¶ 14, 914 A.2d 1112, 1115.

[¶ 12] Here, the record supports the trial court’s finding that although they made general promises to Teresa that she would at some time receive some of their land as a gift or inheritance, the Dows did not make an express promise to convey a parcel of land of any specified size, or with any defined boundaries, at any time certain. The court was correct in finding that the existence of a promise to convey property was an essential element of Teresa’s claim, and in holding that if there was no promise on which Teresa could rely, then her claim of promissory estoppel failed. See Tarbuck v. Jaeckel, 2000 ME 105, ¶¶ 17, 18, 752 A.2d 176, 181 (stating that “[t]he court’s finding that there was no promise on which [the party] could rely thereby foreclosed her argument of promissory estoppel”); Gagne v. Stevens, 1997 ME 88, ¶ 13, 696 A.2d 411, 416 (holding that claim of promissory estoppel fabed when plaintiff “made no promise specific enough to enforce”).

[¶ 13] If the evidence consisted only of the Dows’ general promises to convey land as a gift or inheritance, we would agree that Teresa’s claim of promissory estoppel should be denied. However, the evidence included an important second component: the Dows’ acquiescence, support, and encouragement of Teresa’s con*326struction of a house upon the property and the application of section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts to those facts. Neither the initial decision and judgment nor the order on Teresa’s motion for findings of fact addressed these critical points.

[¶ 14] Against the backdrop of the parties’ general understanding that Teresa would one day receive property as a gift or inheritance from her parents, she decided to build a new house on their land. Jeffrey Dow Sr. agreed to the location, obtained a building permit to allow construction at that site, and not only acquiesced in the house being built, but built a large portion of it himself. In a promissory estoppel analysis, “[t]he promise relied on by the promisee need not be express but may be implied from a party’s conduct.” June Roberts Agency, Inc., 676 A.2d at 50; see Nappi v. Nappi Distribs., 1997 ME 54, ¶ 9, 691 A.2d 1198, 1200 (stating that promise may be implied from a party’s conduct).

[¶ 15] At least as to the land on which Teresa’s house now sits, a promise by Jeffrey Dow Sr. to convey that specific parcel could be implied from his conduct, and if that implication is made, given that Teresa now has an immobile $200,000 asset on that parcel, “[t]he circumstances [are] such that the refusal to enforce the promise to make a gift would work a fraud upon the donee.” Tozier v. Tozier, 437 A.2d 645, 648-49 (Me.1981); see Nappi, 1997 ME 54, ¶ 9, 691 A.2d at 1200 (stating that when applying the doctrine of promissory estop-pel “[i]n the context of the transfer of land, when the donee has made substantial improvements to the land in reliance upon the promise to convey the land, courts will enforce the promise to convey.” (quotation marks omitted)). Under these circumstances, a promise is enforceable notwithstanding a lack of consideration. See Nappi 1997 ME 54, ¶ 9, 691 A.2d at 1200.

[¶ 16] In Tozier, a father told his son that he could have a parcel of land to live on. 437 A.2d at 646. The son moved from where he had been living and built a house on the parcel with his father’s help. Id. Years after the father’s death, the son’s brother made a claim to the property and eventually filed an action for possession. Id. at 646-47.

[¶ 17] Analyzing the father’s original parol promise to give his son a parcel of land, we said:

[T]he enforceability of a promise to make a gift of land depends not upon contract principles, but upon principles of fraud. A mere showing that a donee incurred some detriment at the instance of the donor is insufficient to enforce a parol gift. When the donee, however, has made substantial improvements to the land, and the donee has made the improvements in reliance upon the promise to convey the land, courts will enforce the promise to convey.

Id. at 648 (emphasis in original). We then held that building a house constituted a “valuable and permanent improvement! ]” such that “[t]o deny the [son] his rights in the property ... would be both unjust and inequitable.” Id. at 649. The same equities are applicable in this case.2

[¶ 18] The Restatement (Second) of Contracts also lends support to the inference that the Dows might have made an enforceable promise to convey the site of Teresa’s house to her. It defines a “promise” as “a manifestation of intention to act *327or refrain from acting in a specified way, so made as to justify a promisee in understanding that a commitment has been made.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 2(1) (1981); see § 90, reporters’ note cmt. a (stating that “[o]n the meaning of ‘promise,’ see § 2”). Jeffrey Dow Sr.’s actions in approving the site of Teresa’s house, obtaining a building permit for it, and then building a substantial part of it himself at that location would seem to be “manifestation[s] of [his] intention to act ... in a specified way” — namely a manifestation of his intent to confirm his general promise to convey land to Teresa and to direct it to that specific parcel.

[¶ 19] In addition to giving a general definition of the term “promise,” section 90 specifically discusses promises to make a gift. It explains that “[s]uch a promise is ordinarily enforced by virtue of the prom-isee’s reliance only if his conduct is foreseeable and reasonable and involves a definite and substantial change of position which would not have occurred if the promise had not been made.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 cmt. f. An illustration to that discussion describes a scenario analogous to the one presented here:

A orally promises to give her son B a tract of land to live on. As A intended, B gives up a homestead elsewhere, takes possession of the land, fives there for a year and makes substantial improvements. A’s promise is binding.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 cmt. f, illus. 16.3

[¶ 20] In sum, on the facts found by the Superior Court, Teresa’s reliance on the Dows’ general promise to give her land at some time, when coupled with their affirmative actions in allowing her to build a substantial house on a particular piece of their land, would seem to be eminently foreseeable and reasonable. From those actions, a promise by the Dows to convey that specific site could be fairly implied. Neither the absence of an explicitly articulated promise, nor the absence of consideration is a bar to enforcing that promise. The Superior Court erred in failing to consider the Dows’ actions, in conjunction with their generalized statements, in determining whether the existence of a promissory estoppel is established on these facts.4 Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand the matter to the Superior Court for consideration of the issues identified herein.

*328The entry is:

Judgment as to count one of the complaint and count one of the counterclaim vacated; remanded for further proceedings on those counts. In all other respects, judgment affirmed.

TURNAGE, Presiding Judge.

I. G. Katz filed three suits in the Associate Division of the Circuit Court seeking pension payments for three separate time periods alleged to be due from Danny Dare, Inc. Two suits resulted in judgment in favor of Katz, but a request for a trial de novo was filed and those causes were assigned to a circuit judge for trial. The other suit pending in the Associate Division was transferred to the same circuit judge and all the cases were consolidated for trial without a jury. Judgment was entered in favor of Dare in all cases. On this appeal Katz contends the promise of pension payments made to him by Dare is binding under the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. Reversed and remanded.

There is little or no dispute as to the facts in this case. Katz began work for Dare in 1950 and continued in that employ until his retirement on June 1, 1975. The president of Dare was Harry Shopmaker, who was also the brother of Katz’s wife. Katz worked in a variety of positions including executive vice president, sales manager, and a member of the board of directors, although he was not a member of the board at the time of his retirement. In February 1973, Katz was opening a store, operated by Dare, for business and placed a bag of money on the counter next to the cash register. A man walked in, picked up the bag of money and left. When Katz followed him and attempted to retrieve the money, Katz was struck in the head. He was hospitalized and even though he returned to work he conceded he had some difficulties. His walk was impaired and he suffered some memory loss and was not able to function as he had before. Shop-maker and others testified to many mistakes which Katz made after his return at considerable cost to Dare. Shopmaker reached the decision that he would have to work out some agreeable pension to induce *123Katz to retire because he did not feel he could carry Katz as an employee. At that time Katz’s earnings were about $23,000 per year.

Shopmaker began discussions with Katz concerning retirement but Katz insisted that he did not want to retire but wanted to continue working. Katz was 65 at the time of his injury and felt he could continue performing useful work for Dare to justify his remaining as an employee. However, Shopmaker persisted in his assessment that Katz was more of a liability than an asset as an employee and continued negotiating with Katz over a period of about 13 months in an effort to reach an agreement by which Katz would retire with a pension from Dare. Shopmaker first offered Katz $10,500 per year as a pension but Katz refused. Thereafter, while Katz was on vacation, Shopmaker sent Katz a letter to demonstrate how Katz could actually wind up with more take-home pay by retiring than he could by continuing as an employee. In the letter Shopmaker proposed an annual pension payable by Dare of $13,000, added the Social Security benefit which Katz and his wife would receive after retirement, and added $2,520 per year which Katz could earn for part-time employment, but not necessarily from Dare, to demonstrate that Katz would actually realize about $1,000 per year more in income by retiring with the Dare pension over what he would realize if he continued his employment. Shopmaker testified that he sent this letter in an effort to persuade Katz to retire.

Katz acceded to the offer of a pension of $13,000 per year for life, and on May 22, 1975, the board of directors of Dare unanimously approved the following resolution:

WHEREAS, I. G. Katz has been a loyal employee of Danny Dare, Inc. and its predecessor companies for more than 25 years; and,

WHEREAS, the said I. G. Katz has requested retirement because of failing health; and,

WHEREAS, it has been the custom in the past for the company to retire all executives having loyally served the company for many years with a remuneration in keeping with the sum received during their last five years of employment;

NOW THEN BE IT RESOLVED, That Danny Dare, Inc. pay to I. G. Katz the sum of $500.00 bi-weekly, or a total of $13,000.00 per year, so long as he shall live.

Katz retired on June 1, 1975, at age 67, and Dare began payment of the pension at the rate of $500 every other week. Katz testified that he would not have retired without the pension and relied on the promise of Dare to pay the pension when he made his decision to retire. Shopmaker testified that at the time the board resolution was passed, the board intended for Katz to rely on the resolution and to retire, but he said Katz would have been fired had he not elected to retire.

In the Fall of 1975, Katz began working for another company on 3 to 4 half-days per week. At the end of that year Shop-maker asked Katz if he could do part-time work for Dare and Katz told him he could work one-half day on Wednesdays. For the next two and one-half years Katz continued to work for Dare one-half day per week.

In July, 1978, Dare sent a semi-monthly check for $250 instead of $500. Katz sent the check back and stated he was entitled to the full $500. Thereafter Dare stopped sending any checks. Shopmaker testified that he cut off the checks to Katz because he felt Katz’s health had improved to the point that he could work, as demonstrated by the part-time job he held. Katz testified the decrease was made after Shopmaker told him he would have to work one-half day for five days a week for Dare or his pension would be cut in half. Katz testified, without challenge, that he was not able to work 40 hours per week in 1978 at age 70.

The trial court entered a judgment in which some findings of fact were made. The court found that Katz based his claim on the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel as applied in Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Company, 322 S.W.2d 163 (Mo.App.1959). The court found that Katz was not in the same sitúa*124tion as Feinberg had been because Katz faced the prospect of being fired if he did not accept the pension offer whereas there was no such evidence in the Feinberg case. The court found the pension from Dare did not require Katz to do anything and he was in fact free to work for another company. The court found Katz did not give up anything to which he was legally entitled when he elected to retire. The court found that since Katz had the choice of accepting retirement and a pension or being fired, that it could not be said that he suffered any detriment or significant change of position when he elected to retire. The court further found that it could not find any injustice resulting to Katz because by the time payments had been terminated, he had received about $40,000 plus a paid vacation for his wife and himself to Hawaii. The court found these were benefits he would not have received had he been fired.

Katz contends he falls within the holding in Feinberg and Dare contends that because Katz faced the alternative of accepting the pension or being fired that he falls without the holding in Feinberg.

At the outset it is interesting to note in view of the argument made by Dare that the court in Feinberg stated at p. 165:

It is clear from the evidence that there was no contract, oral or written, as to plaintiff’s length of employment, and that she was free to quit, and the defendant to discharge her, at any time.

In Feinberg the board of directors passed a resolution offering Feinberg the opportunity to retire at any time she would elect with retirement pay of $200 per month for life. Feinberg retired about two and one-half years after the resolution was passed and began to receive the retirement pay. The pay continued for about seven years when the company sent a check for $100 per month, which Feinberg refused and thereafter payments were discontinued.

The court observed that Section 90 of the Restatement of the Law of Contracts had been adopted by the Supreme Court in In Re Jamison’s Estate, 202 S.W.2d 879 (Mo.1947). The court noted that one of the illustrations under § 90 was strikingly similar to the facts in Feinberg. The court applied the Doctrine of Promissory Estop-pel, as articulated in § 90, and held that Feinberg had relied upon the promise of the pension when she resigned a paying position and elected to accept a lesser amount in pension. The court held it was immaterial as to whether Feinberg became unable to obtain other employment before or after the company discontinued the pension payment. The court held the reliance by Fein-berg was in giving up her job in reliance on the promise of a pension. Her subsequent disability went to the prevention of injustice which is part of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

There are three elements to be satisfied to invoke the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. These are: (1) a promise; (2) a detrimental reliance on such promise; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

This court is not convinced that the alternative Shopmaker gave to Katz of either accepting the pension and retiring or be fired takes this case out of the operation of Promissory Estoppel. The fact remains that Katz was not fired, but instead did voluntarily retire, but only after the board of directors had adopted the resolution promising to pay Katz a pension of $13,000 per year for life. Thus, the same facts are present in this case as were present in Fein-berg. When Katz elected to retire and give up earnings of about $23,000 per year to accept a pension of $13,000 per year, he did so as a result of a promise made by Dare and to his detriment by the loss of $10,000 per year in earnings. It is conceded Dare intended that Katz rely on its promise of a pension and Dare does not contend Katz did not in fact rely on such promise. The fact that the payments continued for about three years and that Katz at age 70 could not work full-time was unquestioned. Thus, the element that injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise is present, because Katz cannot now engage in a full-time job to return to the earnings which he gave up in reliance on the pension.

*125Dare’s argument that the threat of being fired removes this case from the operation of Promissory Estoppel is similar to an argument advanced in Trexler’s Estate, 27 Pa.Dist. & Co.Rep. 4 (1936), cited with approval in Fried v. Fisher, 328 Pa. 497, 196 A. 39 (1938). In Trexler the depression had forced General Trexler to decide whether to fire several employees who had been with him for many years or place them on a pension. The General decided to promise them a pension of $50 per month and at his death, the employees filed a claim against his estate for the continuation of the payments. The court observed that the General could have summarily discharged the employees, but was loath to do this without making some provision for their old age. This was shown by the numerous conferences which the General had with his executives in considering each employee’s financial situation, age and general status. The court said it was clear that the General wanted to reduce overhead and at the same time wanted to give these faithful employees some protection. The court stated it as an open question of what the General would have done if the men had not accepted his offer of a lifetime pension. The court said it would not speculate on that point but it was sufficient to observe that the men accepted the offer and received the pension. The court applied § 90 of the Restatement and held that under the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel the estate was bound to continue the payments.

The facts in this case are strikingly similar to Trexler. Shopmaker undoubtedly wanted to reduce his overhead by reducing the amount being paid to Katz and it is true that Katz could have been summarily discharged. However, it is also true that Shopmaker refused to fire Katz, but instead patiently negotiated for about 13 months to work out a pension which Katz did agree to accept and voluntarily retired.

While Dare strenuously urges that the threat of firing effectively removed any legitimate choice on the part of Katz, the facts do not bear this out. The fact is that Katz continued in his employment with Dare until he retired and such retirement was voluntary on the part of Katz. Had Shopmaker desired to terminate Katz without any promise of a pension he could have done so and Katz would have had no recourse. However, the fact is that Shop-maker did not discharge Katz but actually made every effort to induce Katz to retire voluntarily on the promise of a pension of $13,000 per year.

Dare appears to have led the trial court into error by relying on Pitts v. McGraw-Edison Co., 329 F.2d 412 (6th Cir. 1964). Pitts was informed that the company had retired him and would pay him a certain percentage of sales thereafter. Thus, the main distinction between this case and Pitts is that Pitts did not elect to retire on the promise of any payment, but v/as simply informed that he had been retired by the company and the company would make payment to him. There was no promise made to Pitts on which he acted to his detriment. In addition, the court was applying the law of Tennessee and the court stated that Tennessee had not adopted § 90 of the Restatement. The court in Pitts found that Pitts had not given up anything to which he was legally entitled and was not restricted in any way in his activities after being placed in retirement by his company.

The facts in Pitts would not enable Pitts to recover under Promissory Estoppel in Missouri because there was no action taken by Pitts in reliance on a promise. The test to be applied in this case is not whether Katz gave up something to which he v/as legally entitled, bat rather whether Dare made a promise to Mm on which he acted to his detriment. The legally entitled test could never be met by an employee such as Katz or Feinberg because neither could show any legal obligation on the company to promise a pension. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is designed to protect those to whom a promise is made which is not legally enforcibie until the requirements of the doctrine are met. Pitts is not applicable either on the facts or the law.

The trial court misapplied the lav/ when it held that Katz v/as required to show that *126he gave up something to which he was legally entitled before he could enforce the promise of a pension made by Dare. The elements of Promissory Estoppel are present: a promise of a pension to Katz, his detrimental reliance thereon, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcing that promise. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter judgment in all suits in favor of Katz for the amount of unpaid pension.

All concur.

Opinion

MALLANO, P. J.

As alleged in this case, plaintiff, a married woman, obtained an adjustable rate loan from a bank to purchase real property secured by a deed of trust on her residence. About two years into the loan, she could not afford the monthly payments and filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701-784). She intended to convert the chapter 7 proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding (11 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1330) and to enlist the financial assistance of her husband to reinstate the loan, pay the arrearages, and resume the regular loan payments.

Plaintiff contacted the bank, which promised to work with her on a loan reinstatement and modification if she would forgo further bankruptcy proceedings. In reliance on that promise, plaintiff did not convert her bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 proceeding or oppose the bank’s motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. While the bank was promising to work with plaintiff, it was simultaneously complying with the notice requirements to conduct a sale under the power of sale in the deed of trust, commonly referred to as a nonjudicial foreclosure or foreclosure. (See Civ. Code, §§ 2924, 2924a-2924k.)

The bankruptcy court lifted the stay. But the bank did not work with plaintiff in an attempt to reinstate and modify the loan. Rather, it completed the foreclosure.

Plaintiff filed this action against the bank, alleging a cause of action for promissory estoppel, among others. She argued the bank’s promise to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan was enforceable, she had relied on the promise by forgoing bankruptcy protection under chapter 13, and the bank subsequently breached its promise by foreclosing. The trial court dismissed the case on demurrer.

*222We conclude (1) plaintiff could have reasonably relied on the bank’s promise to work on a loan reinstatement and modification if she did not seek relief under chapter 13, (2) the promise was sufficiently concrete to be enforceable, and (3) plaintiff’s decision to forgo chapter 13 relief was detrimental because it allowed the bank to foreclose on the property. Contrary to the bank’s contention that plaintiff’s use of the Bankruptcy Code was ipso facto bad faith, chapter 13 is “ ‘uniquely tailored to protect homeowners’ primary residences [from foreclosure].’ ” (In re Willette (Bankr. D.Vt. 2008) 395 B.R. 308, 322.)

I

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are taken from the allegations of the operative complaint, which we accept as true. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 8, fn. 3 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244, 876 P.2d 1043].)

A. Complaint

This action was filed on April 1, 2009. Two months later, a first amended complaint was filed. On August 17, 2009, after the sustaining of a demurrer, a second amended complaint (complaint) was filed. The complaint alleged as follows.

Plaintiff Claudia Aceves, a married woman, obtained a loan from Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) on April 20, 2006. The loan was evidenced by a note secured by a deed of trust on Aceves’s residence. Aceves borrowed $845,000 at an initial rate of 6.35 percent. After two years, the rate became adjustable. The term of the loan was 30 years. Aceves’s initial monthly payments were $4,857.09.

On March 25, 2008, Option One, the mortgagee, transferred its entire interest under the deed of trust to defendant U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), as the “Trustee for the Certificateholders of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series OOMC 2006-HE5.” The transfer was effected through an “Assignment of Deed of Trust.” U.S. Bank therefore became Option One’s assignee and the beneficiary of the deed of trust. Also on March 25, 2008, U.S. Bank, by way of a “Substitution of Trustee,” designated Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality Loan Service) as the trustee under the deed of trust. The Substitution of Trustee was signed by the bank’s attorney-in-fact.

*223In January 2008, Aceves could no longer afford the monthly payments on the loan. On March 26, 2008, Quality Loan Service recorded a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust.” (See Civ. Code, § 2924.) Shortly thereafter, Aceves filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701-784), imposing an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceedings (see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)). Aceves contacted U.S. Bank and was told that, once her loan was out of bankruptcy, the bank “would work with her on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification.” She was asked to submit documents to U.S. Bank for its consideration.

Aceves intended to convert her chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 case (see 11 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1330) and to rely on the financial resources of her husband “to save her home” under chapter 13. In general, chapter 7, entitled “Liquidation,” permits a debtor to discharge unpaid debts, but a debtor who discharges an unpaid home loan cannot keep the home; chapter 13, entitled “Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income,” allows a homeowner in default to reinstate the original loan payments, pay the arrearages over time, avoid foreclosure, and retain the home. (See 1 Collier on Bankruptcy (16th ed. 2010) ff 1.07[l][a] to 1.07[l][g], 1.07[5][a] to 1.07[5][e], pp. 1-25 to 1-30, 1-43 to 1-45.)

U.S. Bank filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to lift the stay so it could proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure.

On or about November 12, 2008, Aceves’s bankruptcy attorney received a letter from counsel for the company servicing the loan, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (American Home). The letter requested that Aceves’s attorney agree in writing to allow American Home to contact Aceves directly to “explore Loss Mitigation possibilities.” Thereafter, Aceves contacted American Home’s counsel and was told they could not speak to her before the motion to lift the bankruptcy stay had been granted.

In reliance on U.S. Bank’s promise to work with her to reinstate and modify the loan, Aceves did not oppose the motion to lift the bankruptcy stay and decided not to seek bankruptcy relief under chapter 13. On December 4, 2008, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay. On December 9, 2008, although neither U.S. Bank nor American Home had contacted Aceves to discuss the reinstatement and modification of the loan, U.S. Bank scheduled Aceves’s home for public auction on January 9, 2009.

*224On December 10, 2008, Aceves sent documents to American Home related to reinstating and modifying the loan. On December 23, 2008, American Home informed Aceves that a “negotiator” would contact her on or before January 13, 2009—four days after the auction of her residence. On December 29, 2008, Aceves received a telephone call from “Samantha,” a negotiator from American Home. Samantha said to forget about any assistance in avoiding foreclosure because the “file” had been “discharged” in bankruptcy. On January 2, 2009, Samantha contacted Aceves again, saying that American Home had mistakenly decided not to offer her any assistance: American Home incorrectly thought Aceves’s loan had been discharged in bankruptcy; instead, Aceves had merely filed for bankruptcy. Samantha said that, as a result of American Home’s mistake, it would reconsider a loss mitigation proposal. On January 8, 2009, the day before the auction, Samantha called Aceves’s bankruptcy attorney and stated that the new balance on the loan was $965,926.22; the new monthly payment would be more than $7,200; and a $6,500 deposit was due immediately via Western Union. Samantha refused to put any of those terms in writing. Aceves did not accept the offer.

On January 9, 2009, Aceves’s home was sold at a trustee’s sale to U.S. Bank. On February 11, 2009, U.S. Bank served Aceves with a three-day notice to vacate the premises and, a month later, filed an unlawful detainer action against her and her husband (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Aceves (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2009, No. 09H00857)). Apparently, Aceves and her husband vacated the premises during the eviction proceedings.

U.S. Bank never intended to work with Aceves to reinstate and modify the loan. The bank so promised only to convince Aceves to forgo further bankruptcy proceedings, thereby permitting the bank to lift the automatic stay and foreclose on the property.

The complaint alleged causes of action against U.S. Bank for quiet title, slander of title, fraud, promissory estoppel, and declaratory relief. It also sought to set aside the trustee’s sale and to void the trustee’s deed upon the sale of the home.

B. Demurrer

U.S. Bank filed a demurrer separately attacking each cause of action and the requested remedies. Aceves filed opposition.

At the hearing on the demurrer, Aceves’s attorney argued that Aceves and her husband “could have saved their house through bankruptcy,” but “due to the promises of the bank, they didn’t go those routes to save their house. [][]... [][] . . . [T]hat’s the whole essence of promissory estoppel, [f] . . . [f] *225Prior to [American Home’s November 12, 2008] letter, there’s numerous phone contacts and conversations with [American Home], which was the agent for U.S. Bank, regarding, ‘Yes, once we get leave, we will work with you,. . . and they did not work with her at all.’ ” The trial court replied: “The foreclosure took place. There’s no promissory fraud or anything that deluded [Aceves] under the circumstances.”

On October 29, 2009, the trial court entered an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and a judgment in favor of U.S. Bank. Aceves filed this appeal.

II

DISCUSSION

Aceves focuses primarily on her claim for promissory estoppel, arguing it is adequately pleaded. She also contends her other claims should have survived the demurrer. U.S. Bank counters that the trial court properly dismissed the case.

We conclude Aceves stated a claim for promissory estoppel. As alleged, in reliance on a promise by U.S. Bank to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan, Aceves did not attempt to save her home under chapter 13. Yet U.S. Bank then went forward with the foreclosure and did not commence negotiations toward a possible loan solution. As demonstrated in its brief on appeal, U.S. Bank fails to appreciate that chapter 13 may be used legitimately to assist a borrower in reinstating a home loan and avoiding foreclosure after a default.

All but one of Aceves’s remaining claims were properly dismissed. She adequately pleaded a claim for fraud. But the record does not support her other claims or requests for relief: The complaint does not allege any irregularities in the foreclosure process that would permit the trial court to void the deed of sale or otherwise invalidate the foreclosure.

A. Promissory Estoppel

“ ‘The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are “(1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) [the] reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.” ’ ” (Advanced Choices, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1661, 1672 [107 Cal.Rptr.3d 470].)

*2261. Clear and Unambiguous Promise

“ ‘[A] promise is an indispensable element of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice The promise must, in addition, be ‘clear and unambiguous in its terms.’ ” (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044 [107 Cal.Rptr.3d 683], citation omitted.) “To be enforceable, a promise need only be ‘ “definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty[,] and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of damages.” ’ ... It is only where ‘ “a supposed ‘contract’ does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, [that] there is no contract.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1045, citation omitted.) “[T]hat a promise is conditional does not render it unenforceable or ambiguous.” (Ibid.)

U.S. Bank agreed to “work with [Aceves] on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification” if she no longer pursued relief in the bankruptcy court. This is a clear and unambiguous promise. It indicates that U.S. Bank would not foreclose on Aceves’s home without first engaging in negotiations with her to reinstate and modify the loan on mutually agreeable terms.

U.S. Bank’s discussion of Laks v. Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 885 [131 Cal.Rptr. 836] misses the mark. There, the plaintiffs applied for a loan and relied on promissory estoppel in arguing that the lender was bound to make the loan. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the case on demurrer, explaining that the alleged promise to make a loan was unclear and ambiguous because it did not include all of the essential terms of a loan, including the identity of the borrower and the security for the loan. In contrast, Aceves contends U.S. Bank promised but failed to engage in negotiations toward a solution of her loan problems. Thus, the question here is simply whether U.S. Bank made and kept a promise to negotiate with Aceves, not whether, as in Laks, the bank promised to make a loan or, more precisely, to modify a loan. Aceves does not, and could not, assert she relied on the terms of a modified loan agreement in forgoing bankruptcy relief. She acknowledges that the parties never got that far because U.S. Bank broke its promise to negotiate with her toward a mutually agreeable modification. While' Laks turned on the sufficiency of the terms of a loan, Aceves’s claim rests on whether U.S. Bank engaged in the promised negotiations. The bank either did or did not negotiate.

*227Further, U.S. Bank asserts that it offered Aceves a loan modification, referring to the offer it made the day before the auction. That assertion, however, is of no avail. Aceves’s promissory estoppel claim is not based on a promise to make a unilateral offer but on a promise to negotiate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable loan modification. And, even assuming this case involved a mere promise to make a unilateral offer, we cannot say the bank’s offer satisfied such a promise in light of the offer’s terms and the circumstances under which it was made.

2. Reliance on the Promise

Aceves relied on U.S. Bank’s promise by declining to convert her chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding, by not relying on her husband’s financial assistance in developing a chapter 13 plan, and by not opposing U.S. Bank’s motion to lift the bankruptcy stay.

3. Reasonable and Foreseeable Reliance

“ ‘Promissory estoppel applies whenever a “promise which the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance” would result in an “injustice” if the promise were not enforced . . . .’ ” (Advanced Choices, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1671-1672, citation omitted, italics added.)

“[A] party plaintiff’s misguided belief or guileless action in relying on a statement on which no reasonable person would rely is not justifiable reliance .... ‘If the conduct of the plaintiff in the light of his own intelligence and information was manifestly unreasonable, ... he will be denied a recovery.’ ” (Kruse v. Bank of America (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, 54 [248 Cal.Rptr. 217], citation omitted.) A mere “hopeful expectation^ cannot be equated with the necessary justifiable reliance.” (Id. at p. 55.)

We conclude Aceves reasonably relied on U.S. Bank’s promise; U.S. Bank reasonably expected her to so rely; and it was foreseeable she would do so. U.S. Bank promised to work with Aceves to reinstate and modify the loan. That would have been more beneficial to Aceves than the relief she could have obtained under chapter 13. The bankruptcy court could have reinstated the loan—permitted Aceves to cure the default, pay the arrearages, and resume regular loan payments—but it could not have modified the terms of the loan, for example, by reducing the amount of the regular monthly payments or extending the life of the loan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), (3), (5), (c)(1); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ff 1322.06[1], 1322.07[2], 1322.09[l]-[6], 1322.16 & fn. 5, pp. 1322-23 to 1322-24, 1322-31 to *2281322-32, 1322-34 to 1322-42, 1322-55 to 1322-56.) By promising to work with Aceves to modify the loan in addition to reinstating it, U.S. Bank presented Aceves with a compelling reason to opt for negotiations with the bank instead of seeking bankruptcy relief. (See Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1041-1042 [discussing justifiable reliance].)

We emphasize that this case involves a long-term loan secured by a deed of trust, one in which the last payment under the loan schedule would be due after the final payment under a bankruptcy plan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5).) Aceves had more than 28 years left on the loan, and a bankruptcy plan could not have exceeded five years. In contrast, if a case involves a short-term loan, where the last payment under the original loan schedule is due before the final payment under the bankruptcy plan, the bankruptcy court has the authority to modify the terms of the loan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2); In re Paschen (11th Cir. 2002) 296 F.3d 1203, 1205-1209; 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, | 1322.17, pp. 1322-57 to 1322-58; March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy (The Rutter Group 2010) f 13:396, p. 13-45 (rev. # 1, 2010); compare March, ¶¶ 13:385 to 13:419, pp. 13-42 to 13-48 (rev. # 1, 2010) [discussing short-term debts] with id., ¶¶ 13:440 to 13:484, pp. 13-49 to 13-54 (rev. # 1, 2010) [discussing long-term debts].) The modification of a short-term loan may include “lien-stripping,” that is, the bifurcation of the loan into secured and unsecured components based on the value of the home, with the unsecured component subject to a “cramdown.” (See In re Paschen, supra, 296 F.3d at pp. 1205-1209; 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, | 1322.17, pp. 1322-57 to 1322-58; see also March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, || 13:370 to 13:371.1, p. 13-41 (rev. # 1, 2010) [discussing lienstripping].) If a lien is “stripped down,” the lender is “only assured of receiving full [payment] for the secured portion of the [bankruptcy] claim.” (In re Paschen, supra, 296 F.3d at p. 1206.)

4. Detriment

U.S. Bank makes no attempt to hide its disdain for the protections offered homeowners by chapter 13, referring disparagingly to Aceves’s bankruptcy case as “bad faith.” But “Chapter 13’s greatest significance for debtors is its use as a weapon to avoid foreclosure on their homes. Restricting initial . . . access to Chapter 13 protection will increase foreclosure rates for financially distressed homeowners. Loss of homes hurts not only the individual homeowner but also the family, the neighborhood and the community at large. Preserving access to Chapter 13 will reduce this harm.

“Chapter 13 bankruptcies do not result in destruction of the interests of traditional mortgage lenders. Under Chapter 13, a debtor cannot discharge a *229mortgage debt and keep her home. Rather, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy offers the debtor an opportunity to cure a mortgage delinquency over time—in essence it is a statutorily mandated payment plan—but one that requires the debtor to pay precisely the amount she would have to pay to the lender outside of bankruptcy. Under Chapter 13, the plan must provide the amount necessary to cure the mortgage default, which includes the fees and costs allowed by the mortgage agreement and by state law. Mortgage lenders who are secured only by an interest in the debtor’s residence enjoy even greater protection under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) .... Known as the ‘anti-modification provision,’ [section] 1322(b)(2) bars a debtor from modifying any rights of such a lender—including the payment schedule provided for under the loan contract .... [(Cf. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2) [bankruptcy court has authority to modify rights of lender, including payment schedule, in cases involving short-term mortgages]; see pt. H.A.3., ante.)]

“Even though a debtor must, through reinstatement of her delinquent mortgage by a Chapter 13 repayment plan . . . , pay her full obligation to the lender, Chapter 13 remains the only viable way for most mortgage debtors to cure defaults and save their homes. Mortgage lenders are extraordinarily unwilling to accept repayment schedules outside of bankruptcy .... There is no history to support any claim that lenders will accommodate the need for extended workouts without the pressure of bankruptcy as an option for consumer debtors. Reducing the availability of [C]hapter 13 protection to mortgage debtors is most likely to result in higher foreclosure rates, not in greater flexibility by lenders.” (DeJarnatt, Once Is Not Enough: Preserving Consumers’ Rights to Bankruptcy Protection (Spring 1999) Ind. L.J. 455, 495-496, fn. omitted.)

“It is unrealistic to think mortgage companies will do workouts without the threat of the debtor’s access to Chapter 13 protection. The bankruptcy process is still very protective of the mortgage industry. To the extent that the existence of Chapter 13 protections increases the costs of mortgage financing to all consumers, it can and should be viewed as an essential form of consumer insurance . . . .” (DeJarnatt, Once Is Not Enough: Preserving Consumers’ Rights to Bankruptcy Protection, supra, Ind. L.J. at p. 499, fn. omitted.)

We mention just a few of the rights Aceves sacrificed by deciding to forgo a chapter 13 proceeding. First, although Aceves initially filed a chapter 7 proceeding, “[a] chapter 7 debtor may convert to a case[] under [chapter 13] at any time without court approval, so long as the debtor is eligible for relief under the new chapter.” (1 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, f 1.06, p. 1-24, italics added; accord, March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, H 5:1700 to 5:1701, 5:1715 to 5:1731, pp. 5(H)-1 (rev. # 1, 2010), 5(ff)-3 to 5(II)-5 (rev. # 1, 2010); see 11 U.S.C. § 706(a).) In addition, Aceves *230could have “cured” the default, reinstating the loan to predefault conditions. (See In re Frazer (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2007) 377 B.R. 621, 628; In re Taddeo (2d Cir. 1982) 685 F.2d 24, 26-28; 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5); March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, f 13:450, p. 13-50.) She also would have had a “reasonable time”—a maximum of five years-—to make up the arrearages. (11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5), (d); see 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, 1 1322.09[5], pp. 1322-39 to 1322-40; March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, 1 13:443, p. 13-49.) And, by complying with a bankruptcy plan, Aceves could have prevented U.S. Bank from foreclosing on the property. (See 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ffl 1322.09[1] to 1322.09[3], 1322.16, pp. 1322-34 to 1322-37, 1322-55 to 1322-56.) “ 1 “Indeed, the bottom line of most Chapter 13 cases is to preserve and avoid foreclosure of the family house.” ’ ” (In re King (Bankr. N.D.Fla. 1991) 131 B.R. 207, 211; see also March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 8:1050, 8:1375 to 8:1411, pp. 8(II)-1 (rev. # 1, 2010), 8(II)-42 to 8(II)-47 (revs. # 1, 2009, 2010) [discussing automatic stay]; In re Hoggle (11th Cir. 1994) 12 F.3d 1008, 1008-1012 [affirming district court order denying lender’s motion for relief from automatic stay]; Lamarche v. Miles (E.D.N.Y. 2009) 416 B.R. 53, 55-62 [affirming bankruptcy court order denying landlord’s motion to set aside automatic stay]; In re Gatlin (Bankr. W.D.Ark. 2006) 357 B.R. 519, 520-523 [denying lender’s motion for relief from automatic stay].)

U.S. Bank maintains that even if Aceves had pursued relief under chapter 13, she could not have afforded the payments under a bankruptcy plan. But the complaint alleged that, with the financial assistance of her husband, Aceves could have saved her home under chapter 13. We accept the truth of Aceves’s allegations over U.S. Bank’s speculation. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 8, fn. 3.)

5. Absence of Consideration

U.S. Bank argues that an oral promise to postpone either a loan payment or a foreclosure is unenforceable. We have previously addressed that argument, stating: “ ‘[I]n the absence of consideration, a gratuitous oral promise to postpone a sale of property pursuant to the terms of a trust deed ordinarily would be unenforceable under [Civil Code] section 1698.’ (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 673 [111 Cal.Rptr. 693, 517 P.2d 1157], italics added.) The same holds true for an oral promise to allow the postponement of mortgage payments. (California Securities Co. v. Grosse (1935) 3 Cal.2d 732, 733 [46 P.2d 170] . . . [applying Civ. Code, § 1698].) However, \ . . the doctrine of promissory estoppel is used to provide a substitute for the consideration which ordinarily is required to create an enforceable promise .... “The purpose of this doctrine is to make a promise binding, under certain circumstances, without consideration *231in the usual sense of something bargained for and given in exchange (Raedeke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 672.) ‘ “Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or forbearance, in reliance on his promise, if injustice can be avoided only by its enforcement . . . .” ’ ” (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 299, 312 [61 Cal.Rptr.2d 614]; accord, Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1039-1041.) We further commented: “When Raedeke and California Securities Co. were decided, Civil Code section 1698 provided in its entirety: ‘A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing, or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.’... In 1976, a new section 1698 was enacted which states in part: ‘A contract in writing may be modified by a contract in writing . . . [or] by an oral agreement to the extent that the oral agreement is executed by the parties .... Nothing in this section precludes in an appropriate case the application of rules of law concerning estoppel....’” (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 312, fn. 8, citation omitted.) Our earlier analysis in Sutherland applies here.

Finally, a promissory estoppel claim generally entitles a plaintiff to the damages available on a breach of contract claim. (See Toscano v. Greene Music (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 685, 692-693 [21 Cal.Rptr.3d 732].) Because this is not a case where the homeowner paid the funds needed to reinstate the loan before the foreclosure, promissory estoppel does not provide a basis for voiding the deed of sale or otherwise invalidating the foreclosure. (See Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047, distinguishing Bank of America v. La Jolla Group II (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 706, 711-714 [28 Cal.Rptr.3d 825].)

B. Remaining Claims

The elements of fraud are similar to the elements of promissory estoppel, with the additional requirements that a false promise be made and that the promisor know of the falsity when making the promise. (See McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 784, 792-794 [71 Cal.Rptr.3d 885] [discussing elements of fraud].) Aceves has adequately alleged those facts.

Aceves’s other claims and requests for relief lack merit as a matter of law. All of them are based on alleged irregularities in the foreclosure process. We see no irregularities that would justify relief. For example, Aceves contends U.S. Bank’s designation of Quality Loan Service as the trustee under the deed of trust was defective because the Substitution of Trustee was signed by the bank’s attorney-in-fact. But Aceves cites no pertinent authority *232for her contention. (See Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 227, 237-238 [118 Cal.Rptr.2d 313] [party forfeits contention absent citation of authority].) Neither Civil Code section 2934a, which governs the substitution of trustees, nor the trust deed itself precludes an attomey-in-fact from signing a substitution of trustee. And case law strongly suggests Aceves is wrong. (See Tran v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1213 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 728] [“an attomey-in-fact is an agent owing a fiduciary duty to the principal”]; Burgess v. Security-First Nat. Bank (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 808, 818-819 [113 P.2d 298] [person can perform any legal act through attomey-in-fact that he or she could perform in person, including entering into contracts].)

Aceves also takes issue with the notice of default, pointing out that it mistakenly identified Option One, the mortgagee, as the beneficiary under the deed of trust when U.S. Bank was actually the beneficiary. Although this contention is factually correct, it is of no legal consequence. Aceves did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the error. Nor could she. The notice instructed Aceves to contact Quality Loan Service, the trustee, not Option One, if she wanted “[t]o find out the amount you must pay, or arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for any other reason.” The notice also included the address and telephone number for Quality Loan Service, not Option One. Absent prejudice, the error does not warrant relief. (See Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 93-94 & fn. 9 [20 Cal.Rptr.3d 1].) The error here did not violate any statutory notice provisions. The notice of default was recorded by the properly designated trastee, and the notice did not have to identify the beneficiary. (See Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (a)(1) [notice of default may be recorded by trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary]; id., subd. (a)(l)(A)-(D) [setting forth required contents of notice of default].)

Last, after the filing of the reply brief and before oral argument, we requested additional briefing on the protections accorded by chapter 13. In her letter brief, Aceves went beyond the scope of the request and presented arguments not previously made about the order in which various documents were recorded. The new arguments were unsolicited; Aceves did not explain why the arguments were not raised earlier; and U.S. Bank had no opportunity to respond. Accordingly, we do not reach them. (See City of Costa Mesa v. Connell (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 612]; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 350].)

It follows that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend with respect to all claims and requests for relief other than the claims for promissory estoppel and fraud. Aceves should be allowed to pursue those two claims.

*233in

DISPOSITION

The order and the judgment are reversed to the extent they dismissed the claims for promissory estoppel and fraud. In all other respects, the order and judgment are affirmed. Appellant is entitled to costs on appeal.

Rothschild, J., and Johnson, J., concurred.

On February 9, 2011, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

KLEINER, J.A.D.

Plaintiff, Pop’s Cones, Inc., t/a TCBY Yogurt, (“Pop’s”), appeals from an order of the Law Division granting defendant, Resorts International, Inc. (“Resorts”), summary judgment and dismissing *463its complaint seeking damages predicated on a theory of promissory estoppel. Affording all favorable inferences to plaintiffs contentions, Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 536, 666 A.2d 146 (1995), we conclude that Pop’s presented a prima facie claim sufficient to withstand summary dismissal of its complaint. See R. 4:46-2; Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 540, 666 A.2d 146. In reversing summary judgment, we rely upon principles of promissory estoppel enunciated in Section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, and recent cases which, in order to avoid injustice, seemingly relax the strict requirement of “a clear and definite promise” in making a prima facie case of promissory estoppel.

I

Pop’s is an authorized franchisee of TCBY Systems, Inc. (“TCBY”), a national franchisor of frozen yogurt products. Resorts is a casino hotel in Atlantic City that leases retail space along “prime Boardwalk frontage,” among other business ventures.

From June of 1991 to September 1994, Pop’s operated a TCBY franchise in Margate, New Jersey. Sometime during the months of May or June 1994, Brenda Taube (“Taube”), President of Pop’s, had “a number of discussions” with Marlon Phoenix (“Phoenix”), the Executive Director of Business Development and Sales for Resorts, about the possible relocation of Pop’s business to space owned by Resorts.1 During these discussions, Phoenix showed Taube one location for a TCBY vending cart within Resorts Hotel and “three specific locations for the operation of a full service TCBY store.”

According to Taube, she and Phoenix specifically discussed the boardwalk property occupied at that time by a business trading as “The Players Club.” These discussions included Taube’s concerns *464with the then-current rental fees and Phoenix’s indication that Resorts management and Merv Griffin personally2 were “very anxious to have Pop’s as a tenant” and that “financial issues ... could easily be resolved, such as through a percentage of gross revenue.” In order to allay both Taube’s and Phoenix’s concerns about whether a TCBY franchise at The Players Club location would be successful, Phoenix offered to permit Pop’s to operate a vending cart within Resorts free of charge during the summer of 1994 so as to “test the traffic flow.” This offer was considered and approved by Paul Ryan, Vice President for Hotel Operations at Resorts.

These discussions led to further meetings with Phoenix about the Players Club location, and Taube contacted TOBY’S corporate headquarters about a possible franchise site change. During the weekend of July 4,1994, Pop’s opened the TCBY cart for business at Resorts pursuant to the above stated offer. On July 6, 1994, TCBY gave Taupe initial approval for Pop’s change in franchise site. In late July or early August of 1994, representatives of TCBY personally visited the Players Club location, with Taube and Phoenix present.

Based on Pop’s marketing assessment of the Resorts location, Taube drafted a written proposal dated August 18, 1994, addressing the leasing of Resorts’ Players Club location and hand-delivered it to Phoenix. Taube’s proposal offered Resorts “7% of net monthly sales (gross less sales tax) for the duration of the [Player’s Club] lease ... [and][i]f this proposal is acceptable, I’d need a 6 year lease, and a renewable option for another 6 years.”

In mid-September 1994, Taube spoke with Phoenix about the status of Pop’s lease proposal and “pressed [him] to advise [her] of Resorts’ position. [Taube] specifically advised [Phoenix] that Pop’s had an option to renew the lease for its Margate location and then needed to give notice to its landlord of whether it would *465be staying at that location no later than October 1, 1994.” Another conversation about this topic occurred in late September when Taube “asked Phoenix if [Pop’s] proposal was in the ballpark of what Resorts was looking for.” He responded that it was and that “we are 95% there, we just need Belisle’s3 signature on the deal.” Taube admits to having been advised that Belisle had “ultimate responsibility for signing off on the deal” but that Phoenix “assured [her] that Mr. Belisle would follow his recommendation, which was to approve the deal, and that [Phoenix] did not anticipate any difficulties.” During this conversation, Taube again mentioned to Phoenix that she had to inform her landlord by October 1,1994, about whether or not Pop’s would renew its lease with them. Taube stated: “Mr. Phoenix assured me that we would have little difficulty in concluding an agreement and advised [Taube] to give notice that [Pop’s] would not be extending [its] Margate lease and ‘to pack up the Margate store and plan on moving.’ ”

Relying upon Phoenix’s “advice and assurances,” Taube notified Pop’s landlord in late-September 1994 that it would not be renewing the lease for the Margate location.

In early October, Pop’s moved its equipment out of the Margate location and placed it in temporary storage. Taube then commenced a number of new site preparations including: (1) sending designs for the new store to TCBY in October 1994; and (2) retaining an attorney to represent Pop’s in finalizing the terms of the lease with Resorts.

By letter dated November 1, 1994, General Counsel for Resorts forwarded a proposed form of lease for The Players Club location to Pop’s attorney. The letter provided:

Per our conversation, enclosed please find the form of lease utilized for retail outlets leasing space in Resorts Hotel. You will note that there are a number of alternative sections depending upon the terms of the deal.

*466As I advised, I will contact you ... to inform you of our decision regarding TCBY....

By letter dated December 1, 1994, General Counsel for Resorts forwarded to Pop’s attorney a written offer of the terms upon which Resorts was proposing to lease the Players Club space to Pop’s. The terms provided:

[Resorts is] willing to offer the space for an initial three (3) year term with a rent calculated at the greater of 7% of gross revenues or: $50,000 in year one; $60,000 in year two; and $70,000 in year three ... [with] a three (3) year option to renew after the initial term ...

The letter also addressed a “boilerplate lease agreement” provision and a proposed addition to the form lease. The letter concluded by stating:

This letter is not intended to be binding upon Resorts. It is intended to set forth the basic terms and conditions upon which Resorts would be willing to negotiate a lease and is subject to those negotiations and the execution of a definitive agreement

... [W]e think TCBY will be successful at the Boardwalk location based upon the terms we propose. We look forward to having your client as part of ... Resorts family of customer service providers and believe TCBY will benefit greatly from some of the dynamic changes we plan.

... [W]e would be pleased ... to discuss this proposal in greater detail, (emphasis added).

In early-December 1994, Taube and her attorney met with William Murtha, General Counsel of Resorts, and Paul Ryan to finalize the proposed lease. After a number of discussions about the lease, Murtha and Ryan informed Taube that they desired to reschedule the meeting to finalize the lease until after the first of the year because of a public announcement they intended to make about another unrelated business venture that Resorts was about to commence. Ryan again assured Taube that rent for the Players Club space was not an issue and that the lease terms would be worked out. “He also assured [Taube] that Resorts wanted TCBY ... on the boardwalk for the following season.”

Several attempts were made in January 1995 to contact Resorts’ representatives and confirm that matters were proceeding. On January 30,1995, Taube’s attorney received a letter stating: “This letter is to confirm our conversation of this date wherein I advised *467that Resorts is withdrawing its December 1, 1994 offer to lease space to your client, TCBY.”4

According to Taube’s certification, “As soon as [Pop’s] heard that Resorts was withdrawing its offer, we undertook extensive efforts to reopen [the] franchise at a different location. Because the Margate location had been re-let, it was not available.” Ultimately, Pop’s found a suitable location but did not reopen for business until July 5,1996.

On July 17, 1995, Pop’s filed a complaint against Resorts seeking damages. The complaint alleged that Pop’s “reasonably relied to its detriment on the promises and assurances of Resorts that it would be permitted to relocate its operation to [Resorts’] Boardwalk location____”

After substantial pre-trial discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment. After oral argument, the motion judge, citing Malaker Corp. Stockholders Protective Comm. v. First Jersey Nat. Bank, 163 N.J.Super. 463, 395 A.2d 222 (App.Div.1978), certif. denied, 79 N.J. 488, 401 A.2d 243 (1979), rendered a detailed oral opinion in which he concluded, in part:

The primary argument of the defendant is that the plaintiff is unable to meet the requirements for a claim of Promissory Estoppel as there was no clear and definite promise ever made to plaintiff; and, therefore, any reliance on the part of plaintiff upon the statements of the Resorts agent were not reasonable.

... I think that even if a jury would find that a lease was promised, there was lack of specificity in its terms so as to not rise to the level of what is necessary to meet the first element for Promissory Estoppel.

There was no specificity as to the term of this lease. There was no specificity as to the starting date of this lease. There was no specificity as to the rent, although it was represented that rent would not be a problem. Rent had not been agreed upon, and it is not certified that it had been agreed upon. When they left that *468meeting, according to ... plaintiffs own facts, they didn’t have a lease; they would still have to work out the terms of the lease. It was not in existence at the time.

... We don’t have facts in dispute. Neither side, neither the defendant nor the plaintiff, can attest to the terms of the lease, of the essential terms of the lease or still not agreed upon at the time of that the meeting was over in December of 1994.

Based on Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 540, 666 A.2d 146, the judge concluded that the evidence was so one-sided that defendant was entitled to prevail as a matter of law.

It is quite apparent from the motion judge’s reasons that he viewed plaintiffs complaint as seeking enforcement of a lease which had not yet been fully negotiated. If that were plaintiffs intended remedy, we would agree with the judge’s conclusion. However, plaintiffs complaint, after reciting the facts from the inception of Taube’s initial contact with defendant until January 30,1995, stated:

19. As a result of its reasonable reliance on the promises and assurances made to it by Resorts, Pop’s has been significantly prejudiced and has suffered significant damages, including the following:

a. the loss of its Margate location and its ability to earn profits during the 1995

summer season;

b. out-of-pocket expenses, including attorney’s fees; and

c. out-of-pocket expenses in attempting to locate an alternate location.

Wherefore, Pop’s demands judgment against defendant, Resorts International Hotel, Inc., for damages, costs of suit and for other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

It seems quite clear from plaintiffs complaint that plaintiff was not seeking damages relating to a lease of the boardwalk property, but rather was seeking damages flowing from its reliance upon promises made to it prior to October 1, 1994, when it failed to renew its lease for its Margate location. Thus, plaintiffs claim was predicated upon the concept of promissory estoppel and was not a traditional breach of contract claim.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel is well-established in New Jersey. Malaker, supra, 163 N.J.Super. at 479, 395 A.2d 222 (“Suffice it to say that given an appropriate case, the doctrine [of promissory estoppel] will be enforced.”). A promissory estoppel *469claim will be justified if the plaintiff satisfies its burden of demonstrating the existence of, or for purposes of summary judgment, a dispute as to a material fact with regard to, four separate elements which include:

(1) a clear and definite promise by the promisor; (2) the promise must be made with the expectation that the promisee will rely thereon; (3) the promisee must in fact reasonably rely on the promise, and (4) detriment of a definite and substantial nature must be incurred in reliance on the promise.

The essential justification for the promissory estoppel doctrine is to avoid the substantial hardship or injustice which would result if such a promise were not enforced. Id. at 484, 395 A.2d 222.

In Malaker, the court determined that an implied promise to lend an unspecified amount of money was not “a clear and definite promise” justifying application of the promissory estoppel doctrine. Id. at 478-81, 395 A.2d 222. Specifically, the court concluded that the promisor-bank’s oral promise in October 1970 to lend $150,000 for January, February and March of 1971 was not “clear and definite promise” because it did not describe a promise of “sufficient definition.” Id. at 479, 395 A.2d 222.

It should be noted that the court in Malaker seems to have heightened the amount of proof required to establish a “clear and definite promise” by searching for “an express promise of a ‘clear and definite’ nature.” Id. at 484, 395 A.2d 222 (emphasis added). This sort of language might suggest that New Jersey Courts expect proof of most, if not all, of the essential legal elements of a promise before finding it to be “clear and definite.”

Although earlier New Jersey decisions discussing promissory estoppel seem to greatly scrutinize a party’s proofs regarding an alleged “clear and definite promise by the promisor,” see, e.g., id. at 479, 484, 395 A.2d 222, as a prelude to considering the remaining three elements of a promissory estoppel claim, more recent decisions have tended to relax the strict adherence to the Malaker formula for determining whether a prim,a facie case of promissory estoppel exists. This is particularly true where, as here, a plaintiff does not seek to enforce a contract not fully negotiated, but *470instead seeks damages resulting from its detrimental reliance upon promises made during contract negotiations despite the ultimate failure of those negotiations.

In Peck v. Imedia, Inc., 293 N.J.Super. 151, 679 A.2d 745 (App.Div.) certif. denied, 147 N.J. 262, 686 A.2d 763 (1996), we determined that an at-will employment contract offer was a “clear and definite promise” for purposes of promissory estoppel. See id. at 165-68, 679 A.2d 745. The employment contract offer letter contained the position title, a “detailed position description ... as well as information on ... benefits” and an annual salary. Id. at 156, 679 A.2d 745. We recognized that even though an employer can terminate the employment relationship at any time, there may be losses incident to reliance upon the job offer itself. Id. at 167-68, 679 A.2d 745. See also Mahoney v. Delaware McDonald’s Corp., 770 F.2d 123, 127 (8th Cir.1985) (holding that plaintiffs purchase of property for lease to. defendant in reliance upon defendant’s representation that “[w]e have a deal” created cause of action for promissory estoppel); Bercoon, Weiner, Glick & Brook v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 818 F.Supp. 1152, 1161 (N.D.Ill.1993) (holding that defendant’s representation that lease was “done deal” and encouragement of plaintiff to terminate existing lease provided plaintiff with cause of action for promissory estoppel).

Further, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1979), “Promise Reasonably Inducing Action or Forbearance,” provides, in pertinent part:

(1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

[Ibid, (emphasis added).]

The Restatement approach is best explained by illustration 10 contained within the comments to Section 90, and based upon Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 26 Wis.2d 683, 133 N.W.2d 267 (1965):

*47110. A, who owns and operates a bakery, desires to go into the grocery business. He approaches B, a franchisor of supermarkets. B states to A that for $18,000 B will establish A in a store. B also advises A to move to another town and buy a small grocery to gain experience. A does so. Later B advises A to sell the grocery, which A does, taking a capital loss and foregoing expected profits from the summer tourist trade. B also advises A to sell his bakery to raise capital for the supermarket franchise, saying “Everything is ready to go. Get your money together and we are set.” A sells the bakery taking a capital loss on this sale as well. Still later, B tells A that considerably more than an $18,000 investment will be needed, and the negotiations between the parties collapse. At the point of collapse many details of the proposed agreement between the parties are unresolved. The assurances from B to A are promises on which B reasonably should have expected A to rely, and A is entitled to his actual losses on the sales of the bakery and grocery and for his moving and temporary living expenses. Since the proposed agreement was never made, however, A is not entitled to lost profits from the sale of the grocery or to his expectation interest in the proposed franchise from B.

[Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 cmt. d, illus. 10 (1979).]

We particularly note our recent discussion in Mazza v. Scoleri, 304 N.J.Super. 555, 701 A.2d 723 (App.Div.1997). Although Mazza did not focus on the issue of promissory estoppel, it expressly adopted the exception to the Statute of Frauds enunciated in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 139(1) (1979). Mazza, supra, 304 N.J.Super. at 560, 701 A.2d 723. That section provides:

A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce the action or forbearance is enforceable notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach is limited as justice requires.

[Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 139(1) (1979).]

Mazza also instructs, citing Citibank v. Estate of Simpson, 290 N.J.Super. 519, 530, 676 A.2d 172 (App.Div.1996), that “New Jersey typically gives considerable weight to Restatement views, and has, on occasion, adopted those views as the law of this State when they speak to an issue our courts have not yet considered.” Mazza, 304 N.J.Super. at 560, 701 A.2d 723 (citations omitted).

It is thus quite clear that Section 90 of the Restatement complements the exception to the Statute of Frauds discussed in Section 139(1).

*472As we read the Restatement, the strict adherence to proof of a “clear and definite promise” as discussed in Malaker is being eroded by a more equitable analysis designed to avoid injustice. This is the very approach we adopted in Peck, supra, wherein even in the absence of a clear and definite contract of employment, we permitted the plaintiff to proceed with a cause of action for damages flowing from plaintiffs losses based on her detrimental reliance on the promise of employment. 293 N.J.Super. at 168, 679 A.2d 745.

The facts as presented by plaintiff by way of its pleadings and certifications filed by Taube, which were not refuted or contradicted by defendant before the motion judge or on appeal, clearly show that when Taube informed Phoenix that Pop’s option to renew its lease at its Margate location had to be exercised by October 1, 1994, Phoenix instructed Taube to give notice that it would not be extending the lease. According to Phoenix, virtually nothing remained to be resolved between the parties. Phoenix indicated that the parties were “95% there” and that all that was required for completion of the deal was the signature of John Belisle. Phoenix assured Taube that he had recommended the deal to Belisle, and that Belisle would follow the recommendation. Phoenix also advised Pop’s to “pack up the Margate store and plan on moving.”

It is also uncontradieted that based upon those representations that Pop’s, in fact, did not renew its lease. It vacated its Margate location, placed its equipment and personalty into temporary storage, retained the services of an attorney to finalize the lease with defendant, and engaged in planning the relocation to defendant’s property. Ultimately, it incurred the expense of relocating to its present location. That plaintiff, like the plaintiff in Peck, relied to its detriment on defendant’s assurances seems unquestionable; the facts clearly at least raise a jury question. Additionally, whether plaintiffs reliance upon defendant’s assurances was reasonable is also a question for the jury.

*473Conversely, following the Section 90 approach, a jury could conclude that Phoenix, as promisor, should reasonably have expected to induce action or forbearance on the part of plaintiff to his precise instruction “not to renew the lease” and to “pack up the Margate store and plan on moving.” In discussing the “character of reliance protected” under Section 90, comment b states:

The principle of this Section is flexible. The promisor is affected only by reliance which he does or should foresee, and enforcement must be necessary to avoid injustice. Satisfaction of the latter requirement may depend on the reasonableness of the promisee’s reliance, on its definite and substantial character in relation to the remedy sought, on the formality with which the promise is made, on the extent to which evidentiary, cautionary, deterrent and channeling functions of form are met by the commercial setting or otherwise, and on the extent to which such other policies as the enforcement of bargains and the prevention of unjust enrichment are relevant. ..

[Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 cmt. b (1979) (citations omitted).]

Plaintiffs complaint neither seeks enforcement of the lease nor speculative lost profits which it might have earned had the lease been fully and successfully negotiated. Plaintiff merely seeks to recoup damages it incurred, including the loss of its Margate leasehold, in reasonably relying to its detriment upon defendant’s promise. Affording plaintiff all favorable inferences, its equitable claim raised a jury question. See Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 540, 666 A.2d 146. Plaintiffs complaint, therefore, should not have been summarily dismissed.

Reversed and remanded for further appropriate proceedings.