Dominic Deusdedith
Bailey v. West, 105 R.I. 61, 249 A.2d 414 (1969).
Facts: West (D) purchased a horse named Bascom’s
Folly from Dr. Strauss. West discovered on arrival that the horse was
lame and ordered that the horse be returned to Strauss. Strauss refused
to accept the horse and the driver brought the horse to Bailey’s (P)
farm where the horse remained for over four years. Bailey sent bills for
the horse’s care to West who returned them with the notation that he
did not own the horse.
Bailey sued West and the trial court held that an implied in fact contract to board the horse existed between the parties. The court held that the contract was in force until Bailey received notice from West that he would not pay for the boarding of the horse. The court determined that the contract had been in force for five months and awarded the cost of boarding the horse for that period. Bailey appealed and West cross appealed.
Issue: May a volunteer recover for a benefit conferred under quasi-contract?
Holding and Rule: No. A volunteer may not recover for a benefit conferred under quasi-contract.
In this case there was no implied in fact contract because there was no evidence that the parties ever actually intended to contract. If performance is rendered by one party without request by another, that person will generally not owe a duty to compensate the performing party.
In this case Bailey was aware of the controversy regarding the horse’s ownership when he accepted the horse for boarding and he cannot reasonably expect to be compensated. West immediately notified Bailey that he would not be responsible for the horse’s care after receiving the bill for services and did not acquiesce to the conferment of a benefit upon him. Bailey acted as a mere volunteer and acted at his own risk that he might not be compensated.
Disposition: Remanded – Bailey’s appeal denied, West’s cross appeal sustained.
Bailey v. West, 105 R.I. 61, 249 A.2d 414 (1969).
Facts: West (D) purchased a horse named Bascom’s
Folly from Dr. Strauss. West discovered on arrival that the horse was
lame and ordered that the horse be returned to Strauss. Strauss refused
to accept the horse and the driver brought the horse to Bailey’s (P)
farm where the horse remained for over four years. Bailey sent bills for
the horse’s care to West who returned them with the notation that he
did not own the horse.Bailey sued West and the trial court held that an implied in fact contract to board the horse existed between the parties. The court held that the contract was in force until Bailey received notice from West that he would not pay for the boarding of the horse. The court determined that the contract had been in force for five months and awarded the cost of boarding the horse for that period. Bailey appealed and West cross appealed.
Issue: May a volunteer recover for a benefit conferred under quasi-contract?
Holding and Rule: No. A volunteer may not recover for a benefit conferred under quasi-contract.
In this case there was no implied in fact contract because there was no evidence that the parties ever actually intended to contract. If performance is rendered by one party without request by another, that person will generally not owe a duty to compensate the performing party.
In this case Bailey was aware of the controversy regarding the horse’s ownership when he accepted the horse for boarding and he cannot reasonably expect to be compensated. West immediately notified Bailey that he would not be responsible for the horse’s care after receiving the bill for services and did not acquiesce to the conferment of a benefit upon him. Bailey acted as a mere volunteer and acted at his own risk that he might not be compensated.
Disposition: Remanded – Bailey’s appeal denied, West’s cross appeal sustained.
0 comments:
Post a Comment