Restitution and Quasi-Contract Flashcards
Contnam v. Wisdom: rule of law
Where there is no agreement on which the court may enforce a contract between the parties, as where physicians render services to persons who are unable to contract due to their condition, the court may use the legal fiction of a quasi-contract to require payment for those services.
Contnam v. Wisdom: facts
The decedent, A.M. Harrison, was thrown from a street car and suffered serious injuries that rendered him unconscious. F.L. Wisdom and another surgeon (plaintiffs) were asked by a passerby to assist Harrison. They performed a complicated surgery to try to save his life, but he died without ever regaining consciousness. T.T. Cotnam (defendant), as administrator of Harrison’s estate, refused to pay Wisdom and the other surgeon for their services, claiming that Harrison, who was unconscious when the surgeons treated him, could not have assented to the treatment provided. The trial court instructed the jury that if the evidence showed that Wisdom and the other surgeon provided professional services to Harrison in an emergency context, then the estate should be found liable to plaintiffs for the reasonable value of those services, and that the jury could consider the ability of the decedent to pay in determining the reasonable charge for the professional services rendered. The jury found in favor of Wisdom and the other surgeon. Cotnam appealed.
Contnam v. Wisdom: issue
Can the court imply a contract where there is no actual agreement to form an enforceable contract between the parties but where physicians render services to persons who are unable to contract due to their condition and require payment for those services?
Contnam v. Wisdom: holding
Yes. Where services have been provided in an emergency situation to persons who are unable to contract due to their condition, courts may find that a contract implied-in-law exists and require payment for the professional services on that basis. A contract implied-in-law, or a quasi-contract, is a legal fiction created by the court when there is no evidence of an actual agreement between the parties. Although there was no meeting of the minds between the parties, a quasi-contract can create a duty to pay for the reasonable value of the services rendered. Since Harrison was unconscious when Wisdom and the other surgeon were summoned to help him and when they performed the surgery in an attempt to save his life, there was no contract between the parties, either express or implied in fact. However, due to the emergency situation in which their services were required, a contract implied-in-law, or quasi-contract, imposes an obligation on Harrison’s estate to pay the surgeons’ professional fees. Therefore, the trial court’s instruction to the jury in this regard was correct. The trial court should not have instructed the jury to consider the distribution of Harrison’s estate and the value of his estate in setting the reasonable fee, since there is no agreement between the parties as to this type of fee agreement and the quasi-contract requires only a reasonable fee be paid, irrespective of the wealth or poverty of the party receiving the services. Therefore, the admission of this evidence at trial was prejudicial. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded on this ground.
Martin v. Little, Brown, and Co.: rule of law
An implied contract is an agreement which can be legitimately inferred from the intention of the parties as evidenced by the circumstances, the ordinary course of dealing, and common sense.
Martin v. Little, Brown, and Co.: facts
James Martin (plaintiff) sent a letter to Little, Brown & Co. (Little) (defendant) in which he told Little that portions of one of its books, How to Buy Stocks, had been plagiarized by another book. Martin gave Little the name of the other book and the passages that were copied from How to Buy Stocks. The information from Martin was unsolicited by Little, and compensation for the information was never requested or discussed. Little filed a copyright infringement against the plagiarizing party and upon hearing this, Martin demanded compensation from Little for his information and then filed suit to obtain it. The trial court dismissed Martin’s suit. Martin appealed.
Martin v. Little, Brown, and Co.: issue
Is a contract implied where one party voluntarily offers information to the other party, but payment for such information is never discussed or suggested?
Martin v. Little, Brown, and Co.: holding
No. A contract implied in fact is an agreement which can be legitimately inferred from the intention of the parties as evidenced by the circumstances, the ordinary course of dealing, and common sense. Alternatively, a contract implied in law does not take into account the intention of the parties, but rather comes about due to judicial construction in order to maintain justice if one of the parties is unjustly enriched. In the case of a service rendered, an obligation to pay will be implied where the service is of a character that is usually charged for and the benefitting party does something that would lead a reasonable person to expect payment. In general, volunteers have no right to an implied contract. In the case at bar, a contract cannot be inferred from the correspondences between Martin and Little. Martin never suggested that he wanted to be paid for offering the information and, more importantly, Little never gave any indication that it intended to pay Martin. It is not reasonable for Martin to expect payment for his services. Alternatively, Martin may not recover under a contract implied in law either as it cannot be said that Little is unjustly enriched on account of Martin’s information. It is not unconscionable for Little to retain the full benefit of an infringement suit of which Martin has no part. Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed and Martin’s claim is dismissed.
