Free Law School Outline – Contracts Law Fall 2008 Bailey v. West Supreme Court of Rhode Island 1969 Facts: This was a civil action where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was indebted to him for the reasonable value of his services in connection to the feeding, care and maintenance of a race horse named “Bascom’s Folly.” The defendant purchased the horse from Dr. Strauss and had it shipped to Suffolk Downs in Boston. When it arrived, the defendant’s trainer discovered the horse was lame and the defendant ordered him shipped by van back to the seller at Belmont Park. The seller refused to accept the delivery and the van driver, Kelly called the defendant for instructions. It is unclear what was said but Kelly brought the horse to plaintiff’s farm where the horse remained for 4 years and was sold. While the horse stayed on the plaintiff’s farm, he sent bills for its feed and board to the defendant regularly. The defendant said that when he received the first bill, a couple months after the horse was left there, he responded that he was not the owner immediately. Outlines.com The plaintiff said that the first notice disclaiming ownership came a moth or two after the horse was in his care. Procedural history: The trial court judge found that the defendant was liable under an “implied in fact” contract to the plaintiff to board the horse until the plaintiff received the notification that the defendant would not be responsible for the horse’s board. This was the decision of the justice of the superior court sitting without a jury. The plaintiff was awarded judgment and the cost of boarding the horse for 5 months. It is now before this court on the plaintiff’s appeal and defendant’s cross appeal. Issue: Is the defendant liable for the costs of plaintiff’s service through an “implied in fact” contract? Law: Quasi- contract has no reference to the intentions or expressions of the parties. Holding: No. The court denied and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and sustained the defendant’s cross appeal, and the cause was remanded to the superior court for entry of judgment for the defendant. Outlines.com The plaintiff was a mere volunteer who boarder and maintained the horse at his own risk with full knowledge that he may not be reimbursed for his expenses. Reasoning: The defendant alleged in his brief that the trial judge erred in finding that a contract “implied in fact” existed between the parties. The court agreed with this because the source of the obligation in a contract “implied in fact” as in express contracts it the intention of the parties. There was no mutual agreement and “intent to promise” between the parties so as to establish a contract for the defendant to pay the plaintiff for the horse’s maintenance. Outlines.com From the time the horse arrived, the plaintiff was aware there was a dispute over its ownership and did not know who would be responsible for the expenses and even sent bill to both plaintiff and Dr. Strauss. There had never been any known business transactions between these two parties in the past. There was no
element that existed to form any true contract, specifically “intent to contract”. The essential elements of a quasi-contract are a benefit conferred upon defendant by plaintiff, appreciation by defendant of such benefit, and acceptance and retention by defendant of such benefit under such circumstances that it would be inequitable to retain the benefit without payment of value thereof… -The Restatement of Restitution, § 2 (1937) provides: “A person officiously (by force) confers a benefit upon another is not entitled to restitution therefore.” Outlines.com Thus, the plaintiff in this case cannot recover. Since the plaintiff knew there was a controversy over the horse’s ownership, he could not reasonably expect remuneration (payment) from defendant. The plaintiff was a mere volunteer who boarder and maintained the horse at his own risk with full knowledge that he may not be reimbursed for his expenses.