Motel Services, Inc. v. Central Maine Power Co. case brief summary
394 A.2d 786 (1978)
CASE FACTS
The developer entered into an agreement with the housing authority whereby the developer agreed to build housing projects on a "turnkey" basis. After the agreement became effective, the developer asked to change the construction specifications to provide for an electrical rather than an oil heating system in order to qualify for a promotional allowance given by the electric company to the owner of a home built for the use of electricity as the primary method of heating. The authority agreed to the modification, although it was never informed of the promotional allowance. After 90 percent of the work was complete, the property was conveyed to the authority and the electric company sent the allowance to the authority.
DISCUSSION
The court sustained the appeal and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment for the developer on its claim against the electric company.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
394 A.2d 786 (1978)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant developer sought review of a
judgment entered by a trial court (Maine) in favor of appellee
electric company in the contractor's action recover a promotional
allowance from the electric company. The trial court also dismissed a
third party action brought by the electric company against
third-party defendant housing authority for return of the allowance
in the event of a judgment in the contractor's favor.CASE FACTS
The developer entered into an agreement with the housing authority whereby the developer agreed to build housing projects on a "turnkey" basis. After the agreement became effective, the developer asked to change the construction specifications to provide for an electrical rather than an oil heating system in order to qualify for a promotional allowance given by the electric company to the owner of a home built for the use of electricity as the primary method of heating. The authority agreed to the modification, although it was never informed of the promotional allowance. After 90 percent of the work was complete, the property was conveyed to the authority and the electric company sent the allowance to the authority.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court concluded that the housing authority was not entitled to the allowance.
- Not having known of the allowance prior to completion of construction, the authority did not bargain for the allowance and provided no consideration.
- In addition, the electric company received what it had bargained for.
The court sustained the appeal and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment for the developer on its claim against the electric company.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.
No comments:
Post a Comment