Law Questions/cases

1. Mr. Smith awakens one morning to the sound of construction in his back yard. When he looks out the window, he sees Ajax Construction Co. apparently erecting a garage on his property. He had not spoken or contracted with Ajax for this service. However, Mr. Smith really wanted a new garage, so he let them continue. Later, it was discovered that the garage was intended to go next door. Ajax sues Mr. Smith for the value of the garage. What is the probable result?

Answer

Issue Can Ajax recover from Mr. Smith for the cost of the garage? Rule: Ajax can recover if there is a contract or if one of the elements of an enforceable contract is missing, if there is an alternate theory such as implied in law (quasi contract) or implied in fact contract. Analysis: To be an enforceable contract there must be the elements of mutual assent, consideration, capacity and legality. Here we are clearly missing the mutual assent. However, there might be a chance of recovery under implied in fact theory. Implied in Fact is an equitable remedy used when there is no enforceable contract to prevent unjust enrichment or unjust detriment. To qualify under the implied in fact theory, there are three elements:

1. Plaintiff provided services for which he expected to be paid. He was not providing them as a gift.

2. Defendant had an opportunity to reject the services 3. It would be unjust for the Defendant to be able to keep the services or goods without

having to pay for it.

In this case, it appears that all three elements are met. Conclusion: They may argue over a fair price and financing terms, but it appears that Mr. Smith will have to pay something for the garage.

2. Harry meets his friend, Handy, for a few drinks one Friday afternoon. After a while, the following conversation takes place:

Harry: You know I just bought all the lumber to build a deck on the back of my

house. The two builders I’ve talked to want over $1,000 to build it. That’s ridiculous!

Handy: No kidding! I could do it for less. Harry: Really? Do you know how? How much would you charge? Handy: I pretty much know how right now and could figure out the rest. I don’t

know how long it would take, so I don’t want to give a fixed price. But I’d do it for $10 an hour.

Harry: That’s OK, so long as it doesn’t take over 80 hours. Otherwise, I might as well pay one of those guys I talked to.

Handy: OK.

Handy builds the deck while Harry is out of town. Harry sees the deck when he returns and is happy until he notices that the support posts are not placed in concrete as they are on most decks. He contacts Handy and they have the following conversation:

Harry: Those posts should have been placed in concrete! Handy: Probably, but this will probably be good enough. Harry: Well, I want them in concrete. Handy: I’ll redo it if you want me to. It will take another 20 hours. Harry: I don’t care! I want it done right. Handy finishes the job and presents Harry with a bill for $900, $750 for the original 75 hours, and $150 for the time spent redoing the job. Harry wants to pay only the $750 but Handy claims he is entitled to the full amount. Discuss the arguments and strengths of each side’s case if it should go to court.

Answer Issue # 1—Is there an initial enforceable contract for the building of the deck? Rule—For there to be a contract there has to be an offer and an acceptance—a meeting of the minds. If there is a mutual mistake, then there is no contract. Analysis: If there is a “contract” what are the terms. It is clear that the parties agreed on a deck to be built but the question is what are the terms. Handy thought the wood footings would be ok whereas Harry thought that the footings should be in concrete. If that is what the parties each truly believed from objectively looking at the facts and this is a material difference, then there was no contract formed. Handy would have to recover under some other theory such as implied in fact or implied in law—unjust enrichment. However, if this is not deemed to be enough of a material difference to void the contract, then what we have is a dispute over the terms of the contract. Given that the additional work is not all that much in relation to the total contract, it would be up to the judge to determine if the contract included the concrete footings or not. He would probably come to a decision by taking testimony as to the general practice in the industry.

If general practice is mixed, then Handy will claim that there has been a dispute and then there was an accord and satisfaction. Harry will claim that Handy is just doing what he is already obligated to do and therefore there is no consideration for the additional work claimed by Handy. How you answer the above issue effectively answers the question. Conclusion: If general practice is concrete footings, then Harry will not have to pay additional because it would be considered under the terms of the original contract. Otherwise he will be obligated to pay.