Bastian v. Gafford

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Jump to navigationJump to 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.