Bastian v. Gafford
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?
- 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