was formed when, at a regional Burger King conference, Region Vice President Charles Olcott stated to Scheck and eight to ten "Burger King VIPs" that "I can't believe that [Burger King President] Jeff Campbell is ever going to allow [the Howard Johnson's conversion]" . Scheck thus claimed compensable damages based on reliance on this statement, and also sought to estop Burger King from denying that it agreed to forgo the planned Turnpike franchise site. The Court declined to agree that an implied contract was created by Olcott's statement, noting that, while Scheck may have relied on the good faith implications of the statement, he relied on a supposition and not on an actionable promise . Further, the Court noted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel "require[s] affirmative action indicative of a desire to be contractually bound" . There was found nothing on record to suggest that Olcott intended either to enter into a contract, nor induce Scheck to do so. Summary judgement on this count was thus granted with the count itself dismissed. Respecting count IV: Massachusetts consumer protection act Scheck also alleged violations of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93(a), commonly known as the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. This count was summarily dismissed as the Court had already settled that Florida law governed this case. Holding The court thus held that: 1) Florida law governed the case; 2) The Defendant's affirmative defenses of Release and Statute of Frauds were denied and dismissed; 3) Defendant's motion for summary judgement respecting count I of an implied non-competition agreement was granted and count I dismissed. 4) Defendant's motion for summary judgement respecting Count II of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was denied, 5) Defendant's motion for summary judgement respecting Count III of an implied contract and resultant assertion of promissory estoppel was granted and count 3 dismissed, and 6) Defendant's motion for summary judgement respecting Count IV of violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act was granted and Count IV summarily dismissed. Notes References United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida cases