Martin v. Campanaro

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946 · Contracts

Contractsimplied-in-fact contractexpired contractcontinued performanceobjective intentreasonable value of servicesquantum meruitwaiver

Facts

Employees continued working after an earlier agreement had expired. During that period, their representative was seeking revised terms, negotiations were unsuccessful, and the matter was before mediation and the National War Labor Board. The employees were paid at the old rates and signed pay envelopes or accepted checks. They asserted claims for additional compensation beyond those payments.

Issue

When employees continue to work after an agreement expires while negotiations for revised terms are ongoing, does continued performance imply a new contract on the old terms, or may the employees recover the reasonable value of their services above the old rates paid? Also, does acceptance of checks or signing pay envelopes constitute a waiver or release of claims for additional compensation?

Rule

If an agreement expires and the parties simply continue performance without more, a new contract on the old terms may be implied in fact. But the existence of such a new contract is determined by the objective test: whether a reasonable person would think the parties intended a new binding agreement. Conduct that would ordinarily imply assent is negated by other inconsistent conduct, and where the circumstances show no assent to continue on the old terms, the law may recognize an implied-in-fact contract to pay the reasonable value of services, with interim payments treated only as payments on account.

🔒

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.

Granite Harbor Storage, a warehouse company in Buffalo, had a one-year written maintenance agreement with technician Leo Park at $32 per hour. When the agreement expired, Leo kept performing the same work for four months, Granite Harbor kept assigning him the same shifts, and neither side discussed new terms or objected to the old arrangement.

If Leo later sues for a higher hourly rate for those four months, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. When an agreement expires and, without more, the parties continue to perform as before, an implication ordinarily arises that they mutually assented to a new contract containing the same provisions as the old one. Here, there is no inconsistent conduct or surrounding circumstance negating that implication, so the best answer is that a new contract on the old terms is implied.