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.
- 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.