|
Bailey v West
S. Ct. Rhode Island, 1969
Author:- Sam
Biers
Facts: Pl alleges
that the def is indebted to him for care, maintenance, and
feeding of a race horse. These events took place between
May 3, 1962 and July 3, 1966. Defendant purchase the horse
from Dr. Strauss and arranged shipping to Boston. Shortly
thereafter def noticed that the horse was lame, ordered it
returned. The good Dr refused delivery and the driver took
the horse to the plaintiff’s farm. There the horse remained
until it was sold 7-3-66. While at the farm Pl sent bills
for the feed and care to def regularly. Def immediately returned
the 1st bill with a notation that he was not the owner
nor responsible for the horse’s bills.
Issue: Whether
evidence establishes beyond question that between the parties an
essential element as to the formulation of any true contract
existed, as an “intent to contract?”
Holding: No.
Procedure: Bench trial for
pl for cost of boarding and expenses. Pl Appeal and Def
cross appealed. Pl appeal dismissed, def’s sustained,
remanded for entry.
Rule: A quasi contract
exists where one person received the services of another under
circumstances where the person would be unjustly enriched if
allowed to keep the same. Therefore restitution to recover
the benefits conferred. Elements of a standard contract
exist first. Mutual agreement or consent, understanding of the
consideration, and a meeting of the minds. These facts
arise out of the facts, implied or presumed from the acts of the
parties.
Ct. Rationale: If a person
performs a service without the request by another, the other is
under no obligation to pay for those service, especially when the
performance was as a volunteer. The horse had been cosigned
by the defendant to Dr. Strauss, not the plaintiff. The
defendant, upon receipt of the first bill for upkeep, declared
that he was not the owner and would not be responsible.
Plaintiff was a mere volunteer who boarded and maintained the
horse at his own peril, and with full knowledge that the
defendant would not be reimburse for expenses incurred.
PL A: The
defendant by leaving the horse in pl custody, for a period of
years, with notice implies a contract of fact.
Def A: The pl was notified
that def was not the owner of the horse, and that the def was not
responsible for the indebtedness.
|
