Bailey v. West
- Plaintiff boarded a lame horse sent to him by the defendant. Defendant had purcheased the horse from Strauss, found it was lame, sent it back to Strauss, who refused it, and then the van driver, Kelly, took the horse to plaintiff’s stables. Plaintiff later charged defendant for maintenance costs on horse, and the defendant refused to pay claiming it was not his horse.
- History: Trial court, plaintiff appealed.
- Issue: Is a quazi-contract enforceable in this situation?
- Holding: Yes
- Rule: enforceable when entered in voluntarily by plaintiff.
- Result: Denied, dismissed, remanded.
Lucy v. Zehmer
- Facts: Plaintiff–Zehmer–with ulterior motives to play a prank, signed a contract to sell his farm to defendant. Plaintiff later refused saying he thought it was a joke.
- History: Trial court ruled for Plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
- Issue: Is a contract valid based on objective intent to contract, regardless of subjective intent?
- Holding: Yes.
- Rule: The reasonable person standard only considers explicit communication, or objective intent
- Result: For aehmer. Reversed and remanded.
Flureau v. Thornhill
- Facts: Plaintiff sells stocks to make a down payment on a property; afterwards it is revealed defendant can’t verify the title, so he offers to return the money or go through with the deal.
- History: Jury would award damages plus expectation damages
- Issue: Can defendant demand expectation damages (reliance damages) when a contract is not upheld
- Holding: No
- Rule: The only recoverable damages are those put into the payment
- Result: New trial
No comments:
Post a Comment