Bailey v. West

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1969 · Contracts

ContractsImplied-in-fact contractsQuasi-contractUnjust enrichmentVolunteer ruleimplied in factquasi-contractunjust enrichment

Facts

Defendant bought a race horse, "Bascom's Folly," but after the horse arrived and was found lame, defendant's trainer ordered it shipped back to the seller at Belmont Park. The seller refused delivery, and the van driver then brought the horse to plaintiff's farm, where it remained for several years. Plaintiff knew there was a dispute over the horse's ownership, asked about ownership, and for some time sent bills to both defendant and the original seller. Defendant testified that upon receiving plaintiff's first bill he immediately notified plaintiff that he was not the owner and would not be responsible for the horse's keep, and the trial justice credited testimony that defendant's trainer had told the driver defendant would not be responsible for boarding the horse on any farm.

Issue

Did the evidence support liability against defendant either on an implied-in-fact contract theory or on a quasi-contract theory for the cost of boarding and maintaining the horse? More specifically, could plaintiff recover when he accepted the horse with knowledge of an ownership dispute and without a request from defendant?

Rule

A contract implied in fact must contain the elements of an express contract, including mutual agreement, intent to promise, and a meeting of the minds, inferred from conduct rather than words. A quasi-contract requires a benefit conferred on the defendant, the defendant's appreciation of the benefit, and the defendant's acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances making it inequitable to retain it without payment. A person who renders services without request and officiously confers a benefit as a volunteer is not entitled to restitution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Louisville, Nora Pike runs a boarding kennel. A delivery driver drops off a champion dog after saying the dog's purchaser rejected it and the breeder refuses to take it back; Nora asks who owns the dog, and the driver says he is not sure. Nora houses the dog for six weeks, sends invoices to both the purchaser and the breeder, and then sues the purchaser alone.

Is Nora most likely to recover from the purchaser on an implied-in-fact contract theory?

Explanation. An implied-in-fact contract requires the same elements as an express contract: mutual agreement, intent to promise, and a meeting of the minds inferred from conduct. Here, Nora knew ownership or responsibility was disputed and billed both possible owners, indicating she did not know with whom she had any agreement. Those facts are inconsistent with mutual assent by the purchaser. The mere fact that the service was valuable does not establish an implied-in-fact contract.