Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractdamagestrialverdictunjust enrichmentimplied contractjury instructions
contractappealhearingtrialverdictimplied contractappellant

Related Cases

Ruff v. Weintraub, 105 N.J. 233, 519 A.2d 1384, 55 USLW 2435
View Case »
Husky Ventures, Inc. v. B55 Investments, Ltd., 911 F.3d 1000, 102 Fed.R.Serv.3d 574
View Case »
K.G.M. Custom Homes, Inc. v. Prosky, 468 Mass. 247, 10 N.E.3d 117
View Case »
Monarch Accounting Supplies, Inc. v. Prezioso, 170 Conn. 659, 368 A.2d 6
View Case »
Hueper v. Goodrich, 314 N.W.2d 828
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hill v. Waxberg, 16 Alaska 477, 237 F.2d 936

Facts

In December 1949, R. P. Hill engaged contractor Waxberg to assist in preparing for a building project, with the understanding that Waxberg would receive the contract if financing was secured through the F.H.A. Waxberg incurred various expenses and provided significant assistance in obtaining a commitment from the F.H.A. However, negotiations for the contract fell through, and Hill ultimately contracted with another builder. Waxberg then sought to recover the value of his services and expenses.

Pursuant to this plan, Waxberg made several trips to Seattle at the request of Hill to confer with the architects; hired a third party to secure a drill log on the property; surveyed the property; and was generally instrumental in providing the requisite data consisting of plans and cost figures for the consideration of the F.H.A.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the jury was properly instructed on the measure of damages and whether the evidence supported the verdict amount.

It is the propriety of this instruction, together with the alleged excessiveness of the verdict returned thereunder, which appellant attacks by this appeal.

Rule

The court applied principles regarding implied contracts, distinguishing between 'implied in fact' contracts based on the parties' intentions and 'implied in law' contracts based on unjust enrichment.

That something in the nature of an implied contract results where one renders services at the request of another with the expectation of pay therefor, and in the process confers a benefit on the other, is such a principle.

Analysis

The court determined that the jury instructions failed to clearly differentiate between the theories of damages applicable to implied contracts. The confusion led the jury to potentially award damages that included both the value of the benefit conferred and the full measure of Waxberg's services, which was not appropriate under the circumstances. The court noted that the evidence supported the existence of an implied contract but criticized the trial court's handling of the damages instruction.

Unfortunately neither the District Court nor counsel during the course of the proceedings attempted to categorize the action as one based on an ‘implied in fact’ contract or an ‘implied in law’ contract.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the judgment should be modified to $5,896.88, reflecting the reasonable value of Waxberg's services and expenses. If the parties did not agree to this modification, the judgment would be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

We have given this case careful consideration, and notwithstanding what we have said above, we feel constrained to observe that in view of the record in the case, and what appeared to us to be the attitude of counsel at the time of the hearing before us, the ends of justice would best be served if the judgment were, by agreement of the parties, reduced to the sum of $5,896.88.

Who won?

Waxberg prevailed in the case, as the court ultimately recognized his entitlement to recover for the value of his services, albeit at a reduced amount.

The trial court concluded that the evidence undisputedly established the existence of an agreement between the parties that Waxberg would be awarded the contract.

You must be