Bus feedback3
I believe that every situation is different in terms of compensation owed for services not contracted. This is why the idea of quasi contract was developed. Quasi contracts are very necessary in today's society due to the amount of grey area that may arise in various situations. In the scenario outlined above it was very unfortunate that the house painter painted the wrong house but the promisee should not be held at fault because the promisor did not paint the right house. The Prevention of Unjust Enrichment should cover the painting of the appropriate house since the contract outlined that this service should have been rendered. In terms of the neighbor whose house was painted in error, I believe that if appropriate evidence is supplied that the neighbor should have to pay for the painting; but "just" evidence would have to prove that the neighbor benefited from the mistake of the painter.
1. Feedback
I think that having to pay for a service that you did not order or request is downright crazy. If the situation metioned above in the discussion is true or happen to me, i would be very upset and refuse to pay for service. Unless I was totally ok with the painting of my house to include the job , the color, and the quality of work then i would pay for the service, but it is high unlikely for that to happen. I am a very frugal shopper and I personally would have shop around town for the best possible. I thnik the opposite view of this is that you are feuding with your neighbor, and they order your house to be painted, or lawn to be cut and you did not have any idea the day and time that the service is suppose to happen. Your are outside on your balcony drinking lemonade and then the people show up to cut your grass. You stop and ask question and then refuse the service. The lawn service still charges you for the time and effort of coming out to your place. I think that if you can prove you neighbor arrange the service out of spite that you have a case against them in civil court.
2. Feedback