The term promissory estoppel has been used to refer to two separate concepts. The courts have recognized that actions taken in reliance on a definite promise may serve as a substitute for consideration "even though the action was not bargained for by the promissor and was not performed as an agreed exchange for the promise." Arthur Linton Corbin, 1A Corbin on Contracts 194 (1963); Schafer et al v. Fraser et ux, 206 Ore. 446, 472, 290 P.2d 190 (1955), 206 Ore. 494, 294 P.2d 609 (1956); Bixler v. First Nat. Bank of Oregon, 49 Ore. App. 195, 199, 619 P.2d 895 (1980). When promissory estoppel serves as a consideration substitute, the plaintiff is entitled to the usual contractual remedies. Promissory estoppel may be used when a party acts in reliance on an indefinite promise to create a binding obligation but that only reliance damages may be appropriate in that instance. Neiss, 135 Ore. App. at 229; Bixler, 49 Ore. App. at 199 n 4.