Final answer:
In a scenario where the Veneros relied on Henry's promise to build and stock a store but no written contract was made, Promissory Estoppel could help them recover damages due to reasonable reliance and subsequent loss.
Step-by-step explanation:
Given the situation where the Veneros and the agent for Red Hot store design company, Henry, had agreed upon a service but experienced multiple price increases and no formal contract was signed, the Veneros could potentially rely on Promissory Estoppel. Promissory Estoppel applies when one party reasonably relies on a promise made by another, even if a formal contract does not exist. Due to Henry's promises, the Veneros took action by getting a loan in anticipation of the service, so if they can prove that they relied on Henry's initial offer and subsequently suffered a loss because of it, they may be able to recover some money. Quantum Meruit, another option, could also apply as it involves payment for services rendered in situations where no contract exists, but in this case, the project did not commence, so it may not be as relevant. Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing and is likely not applicable here as there was no written contract. Parol Evidence Rule governs what can be considered outside of a written contract and also seems irrelevant in this context since no contract was signed.