Quasi Contract

This assignment has two purposes. The first is to demonstrate how Precedent is used to resolve cases. Remember that Precedent states that similar situations should be resolved similarly. Thus, a Court would look at the Rule(s) and Conclusion in the Seawest case and apply it to the KitDoodle case. The second is to develop the concept of Quasi-Contract. Remember, all that is needed to create a contract is offer, acceptance, & consideration (the mutual exchange of something of legal value). Most contract are express, meaning both parties acknowledge that they are entering into a contract. But sometimes one party believes they have a contract and the other does not. How do we decide who is right? The Objective Theory of Contracts says that the Reasonable Person will look at the partys behavior. Read the Seawest case & compare it to the Crazy Cat case. Answer the questions below. Seawest v. Copenhaver, NO. 65577-9-I, (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012) FACTS The main facts are undisputed. The Copenhavers own Island County, Washington real property. Seawest maintains and operate a domestic water & distribution system . The Jim and Suzanne Copenhaver paid Seawest for water services and related assessments since 2001. However, after a dispute, the Copenhavers stopped paying for the water, claiming they did not have an express contract with Seawest. Seawest therefore sued the Copenhavers for the unpaid bills. The trial court granted summary judgment in Seawest's favor, and the Copenhavers appealed. LEGAL ANALYSIS The record supports a contract implied in law. The essential elements of unjust enrichment are "'a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and the acceptance or retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without the payment of its value.'" In such situations, a "quasi contract" or "contract implied in law" exists between the parties. All owners who held Seawest water shares are responsible for paying assessments. Undisputed evidence discussed above shows that the Copenhavers utilized the Seawest system and paid, without objection until litigation ensued, all water use, water maintenance, and assessment base charges to Seawest. The Copenhavers stopped all payments (including water charges) and claimed they were not Seawest limited members for the first time when this litigation ensued. The Copenhavers received quarterly water bills that show charges for "water base," "water usage," and "assessment base." the Copenhavers would be unjustly enriched if they could retain benefits provided by Seawest without paying for them. The Copenhavers acquired property that carried with it a water share. We conclude the undisputed record supports a contract implied in law. The Copenhavers would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Seawest if they were allowed to retain the benefits of the water system without paying for it. Like in Lake Limerick, receiving services from an association without paying for them would be unjust. The record supports a contract implied in law. CASE BRIEF Issue: Plaintiff: Copenhavers need to pay for water Defendant: Copenhavers do not believe they do not need to pay because they dont have a contract? Issue: Whether the Copenhavers are required to pay Seawest for the water they used, even though they had no express contract. Rule: This Rule is Called Quasi Contract or Unjust Enrichment. It has 4 parts (elements): 1) the defendant received a benefit 2) the defendant knew they were getting a benefit 3) the defendant accepted/retained/used the benefit 4) it would be unequitable (unfair) to let defendant use the benefit without paying. Application of Relevant facts to Law (facts which have been applied to the rule by the trial court: 1) The Copenhavers received a benefit water 2) The Copenhavers knew they were getting the water 3) The Copenhavers accepted/used the water 4) It would be unfair to let the Cophenavers use the water without paying for it. Conclusion: The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial courts application of facts to the law and affirmed (agreed) with the trial court: The Copenhavers are required to pay Seaawest for the water they used even though they had no express contract. After reading Seawest v Copenhaver, and its legal analysis, compare that case to the story below and discuss whether or not quasi-contract should apply. Explain fully. Theodore & Franklin developed Crazy Cat, a caricature of a Calico Cat with a do-not-back-down attitude. They promoted and marketed the character to KitDoodle, a popular supplier of cat food and cat products. Kipling, a marketing manager at KitDoodle, liked the idea, presented it to the CFO (along with financial terms) who rejected it. Meanwhile, the CFO approached its advertising agency with a new idea involving a Crazy Calico Cat. The company made the Cat the focus of its marketing but paid nothing to Theodore & Franklin. Theodore & Franklin sued KitDoodle for, among other things Breach of Implied Contract. Answer the following questions. {Do not discuss Intellectual Property Rights.} 1. What is the rule of Implied Contract? 2. Appy each rule to the facts to determine if the requirements for an implied contract exist.