Only logged-in users can create and edit pages

Bastian v. Gafford

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Jump to: navigation, search

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.