Dunneback v. Pittman; (Sup. Ct. of WI, 1934); CB 638; Notes 19
- Facts: P met on several occasions w/ D, talked about building sea wall. D thinks they had agreed that he was to build the sea wall, starts to build it when P not there. P, upon seeing it, says she doesn’t want it.
- Issue: Did District Ct err in allowing D to recover from P upon quasi-contract for work performed and materials?
- Holding: where no unfair or inequitable benefit bestowed on other party, and P here made no attempt to retain the work of D, there was no unjust enrichment. No recovery for D.
- Rule: Quasi-contracts rest solely upon the universally recognized moral obligation of one who has received a benefit, the retention of which would be unjust, to make restitution.
- Commentary: Court says that if P was there and saw the wall going up, would have reached different result.
No comments:
Post a Comment