Table of Contents
Requirements to recover on a quasi contract
A quasi contract, which also referred to as implied-in-law contract, is court provisional legal protection for parties that would otherwise suffer a loss for getting into contracts with the unintended persons. The court takes a rather moral obligation to protect the innocent people when they find themselves in positions whereby they are required to pay another party who they were not aware of damaging their property. They court makes it appear as if the two parties were in a contract before the case arises. If the defendant may have caused significant damage or change to other peoples’ property but the court finds that he was unaware of the damage then he will be compensated.
However, the court assumes that the defendant wanted to benefit and therefore did not alert the quasi contractor to stop what he or she now implies as damage. Therefore, the court demands that the defendant pays the quasi, a value that is not inflated for the cost he or she incurred to place the change that the defendant implies as damage to his property. A quasi contract therefore ensures that the defendant does not reap from the arguably damaging effect of the actions of the quasi contractor. From the quasi contract, the accused will have undertaken the cost of putting up what the defendant makes the impression of as being damaging.
However, the accused is compensated only at the quantum meruit, the exact deserved value of compensation without any profit. The quasi contract seeks to balance the likely losses suffered by both parties and so it would be unfair to compensate accused at a profit. The contractor is therefore required to prove that he undertook his actions from total ignorance.
Requirements, which will be disputed in this case
From the case study of Middletown motors and Lindquist, one of the requirements that will be disputed is the fact that Middletown will demand that they should not suffer the cost of employing Miller. In a quasi, contract a side is not supposed to gain profits or suffer a loss. Since Middletown motors did not make a profit, the company will argue that it should not be required to pay Miller although he worked with the company. Middletown will argue that since the contract did not go through as it was intended then they should not pay Miller who was still a Lindquist employee.
The other disputable argument will be caused by Lindquist demanding that Middletown motors should pay Craig Miller. The impression made by Lindquist was that Miller was working for both companies. However, an agreement was not reached and so Middletown motors may explain that since Miller was not their employee then Lindquist should pay him. Middletown may therefore want to make the impression that they did not know that Miller was working on their behalf and so they should not pay him.
The fact that Middletown motors did not make a profit gives them an upper hand in disputing Craig Millers payment. Quasi contract does not negotiate for a profit and so Middletown motors will explain that they did not make a profit out of the attempted partnership. However, Lindquist may explain that there was an attempted contractual relationship between the two dealers and so they should cater for the expenses including Craig Miller’s salary. From the principle of quantum meruit then Lindquist may also demand that they will not suffer the cost of paying Miller’s salary, which will be a loss to them. Lindquist had not invested any funds and so any benefit they receive from this attempted contract will be highly disputed by Middletown motors.
Related Justice essays
- Student Fundamental Rights
- Rosenberg Trial
- Liberty and Justice for All
- Criminal Control Policies
- Court System Paper
- Petit v. the City of Chicago
- Domestic Violence
- The Death Penalty in Louisiana
- New York Times vs. United States
- Penal Policy in the United Kingdom