This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS C0-96-465 Creation Production Services, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. Matthew Benjamin Productions, Inc., et al., Respondents. Filed August 13, 1996 Affirmed Toussaint, Chief Judge Hennepin County District Court File No. CT-94-4251 Richard H. Kyle, Jr., Robert J. Tansey, Jr., Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, 2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellants) David J. Yarosh, Gurstel and Gurstel, Ltd., 600 Baker Building, 706 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondents) Considered and decided by Huspeni, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Foley, Judge.* U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge Appellants, Creation Production Services, Inc. and Creation Audio Recording, challenge an order granting respondent John Grossman's motion for summary judgment on appellants' claims against of fraud and promissory estoppel. We affirm. D E C I S I O N A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that either party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. On appeal, the reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993) (citation omitted). Appellants assert the district court erred in granting summary judgment for respondent Grossman, president and sole shareholder of respondent Matthew Benjamin Productions. Appellant alleged that respondent Grossman made false oral representations to appellants that his personal wealth and that of his family supported respondent Matthew Benjamin Production’s financial capacity to complete a deal with appellants for the sale of a building and the equipment contained therein. Appellants argue their fraud claim was supported by sufficient evidence and was pled with the requisite particularity. We concur with the district court that the record does not support appellants' allegations of fraud. See Froelich v. Aspenal, Inc., 369 N.W.2d 37, 38-40 (Minn. App. 1985) (where the seller/owner of a business unsuccessfully sought personal guarantees on indebtedness from the officers of the purchasing corporation, and the court held that even if oral assurances were made, they were made by the officers in their corporate, not personal capacity, and that a corporate officer's oral assurance that a debt would be paid does not amount to a personal guarantee of payment); see also American Computer Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co., 763 F.Supp. 1473, 1487 (D.Minn. 1991), (statements are not actionable as fraud if they constitute ordinary sales talk, puffing, statements of opinion or promises of future acts). Appellants also assert the district court erred in dismissing appellants' promissory estoppel claim against respondent Grossman, arguing appellants produced sufficient evidence to support their estoppel claim because "the record is full of instances where Grossman assumed personal responsibility" for the purchase agreement. The promissory estoppel claim against respondent Grossman was properly dismissed, however, because respondent Grossman provided no personal guarantee for the purchase agreement. Respondent Grossman did not sign the purchase agreement in an individual capacity, nor did he assume personal responsibility for the transaction, and, as noted above, even a corporate officer's oral assurance that he will personally see to it that a debt will be paid does not amount to a personal guarantee of payment. See Froelich, 369 N.W.2d at 39-40. Respondents contend the district court improperly denied respondents' motion for costs and attorney fees. The standard of review of decisions on attorney fees and costs under both Minn. Stat. § 549.21 and Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 is whether the district court abused its discretion. Radloff v. First American Nat'l Bank, 470 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. July 24, 1991). In addition, rule 11 should be construed "somewhat narrowly" as it is preferable that some sanctionable conduct escape discipline rather than cause the deterrence of legitimate or arguably legitimate claims. Uselman v. Uselman, 464 N.W.2d 130, 142 (Minn. 1990). Requisite to an award of statutory sanctions is that counsel proceeded in bad faith. “As the existence of bad faith is an issue of fact, * * * the district court is in the best position to make this determination.” Id. at 140. We find no abuse of discretion here. Affirmed.
* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.