In C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co. (1978) 23 Cal.3d 1, the Supreme Court determined that the matter should proceed as a court trial: "because plaintiff's suit for damages for breach of contract was based entirely upon the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel , the gist of the action must be deemed equitable in nature and, under well established principles, neither party was entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right." The Supreme Court went on to explain: "Defendant before us has argued that because plaintiff sought to recover damages rather than to compel defendant to perform its bid, plaintiff requested relief which is available at common law. Yet, as we have seen, damages at law were unavailable in actions for breach of a gratuitous promise. The only manner in which damages have been recognized in such cases of gratuitous promises is by application of the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel which renders such promises legally binding. Without the employment of this doctrine, essentially equitable, there was no remedy at all. As illustrated by the express language of section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, promissory estoppel is used to avoid injustice 'by enforcement of the promise.'Furthermore, the addition, in such cases, of a prayer for damages does not convert what is essentially an equitable action into a legal one for which a jury trial would be available." ( C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co., supra, 23 Cal.3d at pp. 10-11.)