Day v. Caton

Day v. Caton, 119 Mass. 513 (1876).

Facts: Plaintiff built a wall 1/2 on each of his and Defendant's property. Defendant knew that Plaintiff expected part payment, and that Defendant benefited.

Issue: Was there a contract?

Holding: Yes, Defendant is liable for his 1/2 of the wall under an implied-in-fact contract.

Rule:

• Silence results in implied-in-fact contract if :
  • Plaintiff expects payment
  • Defendant has reason to know that Plaintiff expects payment
  • Defendant did not object to service
  • Defendant availed himself to the benefit of the service
• If a party voluntarily avails himself of the benefit, when given ample opportunity to object, even without verbal consent, consent may be implied.