Bastian v. Gafford: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Lost Student (talk | contribs) (Created page with "''Bastian v. Gafford'', 563 P.2d 48 (Idaho 1977). '''Facts''': Defendant asked Plaintiff to draw building plans for cost-plus construction. Bank refused a cost-plus loan; Plaint...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
*For an implied-in-fact contract: | *For an implied-in-fact contract: | ||
**Unjust Enrichment is irrelevant | **Unjust Enrichment is irrelevant | ||
**Real contract | **Real contract-- expectation damages are the proper remedy. | ||
[[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | [[Category:Cases:Contracts]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:00, October 23, 2011
Bastian v. Gafford, 563 P.2d 48 (Idaho 1977).
Facts: Defendant asked Plaintiff to draw building plans for cost-plus construction. Bank refused a cost-plus loan; Plaintiff refused other payment plan. Defendant went to another contractor, without receiving any benefit from the plans of Plaintiff.
Issue: Was there an implied-in-fact contract or a quasi-contract between Defendant and Plaintiff?
Holding: No.
Rule:
- For a quasi-contract:
- Need to prove unjust enrichment and benefit conferred to receive damages
- Restitution damages are the proper remedy
- For an implied-in-fact contract:
- Unjust Enrichment is irrelevant
- Real contract-- expectation damages are the proper remedy.
