Restitution Flashcards
Express K
K manifested either orally or in writing
Implied K
K manifested by conduct
Implied-in-fact K
GOVERNED BY K LAW
- These Ks arise when performance was sought through words/conduct and even though there was no formal offer (missing: material terms, how performance can be accepted, how the party should perform, schedule of performance, duration of agreement, etc.), the parties conduct indicates an agreement was formed.
e. g.) Z tells Y at the bar, “I really need to find someone who will cut my grass while I’m recovering from surgery.” (This is a proposition that cannot be accepted, no intent to be bound, not clearly comm. to Offeree, etc.) Then Y shows up every Friday and cuts Z’s grass and Z leaves $30 on the porch every Friday afternoon, which Y collects. This is an IMPLIED-IN-FACT K.
- There’s no evidence of a contract, offer, acceptance, promise, or exchange of promises, but a reasonable person would conclude based of the parties’ actions/conduct that an agreement was formed.
- Reqs. further examination to det. terms from the fact finder
Implied-at-Law K (Quasi-K)
Fictional K created by the Court.
- It is an obligation created by law w/o regard to the parties words or conduct
- Provides remedy in case of UNJUST ENRICHMENT
- Restitution laws govern
Express
- An agreement manifested in words, either spoken or written.
- An agreement created by the parties.
- Contract law governs.
Implied-in-Fact K
- K law governs and is an enforceable K.
- Based on a promise inferred from the conduct of the parties
- Not sufficiently clear so needs fact finder interpretation
ex. Z and Y, neighbors, are at dinner and Z says, “I’m having foot surgery and need to find someone to cut my lawn.” On Sunday Y shows up and cuts Z’s lawn and Z leaves $20 on the porch, which Y takes after performing. Y continues to show up and Z continues to leave $20 on the porch.
- There is no agreement, promise, or K. But the parties’ conduct suggests there is an agreement/promise btwn. them, so they have an Implied-at-Law K.
Four Elements of an Restitution
Implied-at-Law Agreement [Quasi-K]
- P conferred a benefit to D (good(s) or service)
- D has knowledge of the benefit
- D accepted or retained the benefit
- Kept the good or it’s something that can’t be given back [i.e. pool, paint job, repaved driveway]) - D would be unjustly enriched if P not restored to his position from before his performance
§ 370-77: Restitution (broad stroke)
Principle of Equity (Restitution replaced the term “Quasi-K)
- Remedy for unjust enrichment
- Separate from K law
Criteria:
- P must prove D was unjustly enriched; AND
- The unjust enrichment was incurred at P’s expense
Damages:
What is “unjust”? This is calc. based on many diff. factors, but mainly:
- Measured by benefit to party that was unjustly enriched
—- So “Party Y” that incurs the detriment can seek the rsbnl. mkt. value for the services rendered ONLY IF “Party Z” is unjustly enriched by “Party Y’s” performance.
- NOT measured by P’s “loss” from performing b/c that “loss” likely includes P’s profit margin built in the claimed “loss.” So P’s “ACTUAL LOSS” is the fair market value for the goods and labor rendered/furnished w/o considering the loss of profit.
Measurement of Damages
Reasonable Market Value of the services rendered
or
Unjust enrichment received
Quantum Meruit
Restitution for value of services rendered.
* The Un-officious Meddler *
When a party provides a service that society considers necessary and, as a society, we wish to continue to encourage that conduct.
- APPLIES TO BOTH VALBA(N)T & MERUIT:
- If good(s)/service(s) rendered in protection of another’s property would have reasonably consented to had the property owner been able to consent/agree, the performing party is entitled to restitution.
Quantum Valba(n)t
Restitution for value of goods furnished.
Where one who provides goods to another where the recipient presumably would have promised to pay can recover the reasonable value of the goods.
- Avoids unjust enrichment and detrimental loss.
- APPLIES TO BOTH VALBA(N)T & MERUIT:
- If good(s)/service(s) rendered in protection of another’s property would have reasonably consented to had the property owner been able to consent/agree, the performing party is entitled to restitution.
Officious Intermeddler
- A person who does something to benefit another without being requested or legally/societally obligated to do so, and
- Therefore, not entitled to restitution for their actions b/c they are likely doing so for in a self-serving motivation to receive payment.
ex. Homeless person washing windows at traffic light. Painting a person’s home while they are on long vacation w/o their consent/knowledge (even if they like the color and quality of the job).
Un-officious Intermeddler
Good Samaritan
- The opposite of a self-serving motivation/officious intermeddler
Unjust Enrichment
Equitable Principal
- one will not be permitted to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another; OR
- receive property or benefits w/o giving compensation for them
*** As long as the party was acting un-officiously
Pelo Case Rule
Where a person confers benefits on another in a setting in which the actor is not acting officiously, the benefitted party may be required to make restitution.
Where one renders services of value to another with his knowledge or consent, the presumption is that the one rendering the services expects to be compensated and the one who receives the services intends to pay so the law will imply the missing promise to pay.
