The geographic coordinates will need to be entered manually.
See here for information about acceptable input formats.
Free text:
''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. [[Category:Cases:Contracts]]