Joseph Hoffman alleged that Red Owl stores promised him that it would build a store building in Chilton, Wisconsin and stock it with merchandise for Hoffman to operate in return for Hoffman's investment of $18,000. The size, cost, design, and layout of the store building was not discussed, nor were the terms of the lease as to rent, maintenance, and purchase options. In reliance on Red Owl's promise, Joseph Hoffman and his family sold their bakery and grocery store business, purchased the building site in Chilton, and rented a residence there. The deal, however, was never consummated. A dispute arose, Red Owl did not build the store, and Red Owl denied liability to Hoffman on the basis that Red Owl's promise had been too indefinite with respect to all details for a contract to have resulted.

Do you think it would be equitable for the court to award some type of relief to Hoffman in this situation? Why or why not? Provide the example to support your answer