Friday, March 23, 2012

Vickery v. Ritchie case brief

Vickery v. Ritchie; (SJC of MA, 1909); CB 632; Notes 18
  • Facts: Architect fraud. Architect played intermediary role b/t owner (D) and contractor (P) for K to build Turkish bathhouse. Architect had P sign contract saying price would be $23k, had contractor sign one saying $33,721. Bathhouse would increase property value by $22k. D wants to get paid, saying P unjustly enriched by his work.
  • Issue: What does P owe D?
  • Holding: There is no K b/c there was no meeting of the minds (rescission), and thus D can recover labor and materials used on project.
  • Rule: Quantum Meruit: “as much as he deserved.” The reasonable value of services; damages awarded in an amount considered reasonable to compensate a person who has rendered services in a quasi-contractual relationship.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...