cstr

Bailey v. West
Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1969
105 R.I. 61, 249 A.2d. 414

1. FACTS

Bailey is the Plaintiff (P) and West is the Defendant (D). P sued D for D being indebted to him for the cost of taking care of D’s horse, “Bascom’s Folly.” from May 3, 1962 to July 3, 1966. P won his case in the trial court but still appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island because P was not satisfied with the remedies. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of D. (pp. 12-13)

D bought the horse from Dr. Strauss Belmont Park in New York. After the horse arrived at D’s place, D’s horse trainer found that the horse was lame. So D decided to return the horse back to Dr. Strauss by asking a van driver, Kelly, to do so. However, Dr Strauss refused to receive the horse. Then, Kelly brought the horse to P’s farm on May 3, 1962. (p. 13.) P knew the ownership of the horse was under dispute because P found that the horse was lame and Kelly told P: “That’s why [P] wouldn’t accept [the horse].” (p.16.)

After P began to take care of the horse, P sent a bill to D. However, D returned the bill and said that he was not the owner of the horse. (p. 13.)

2. ISSUE

2.1 Without any intention of the parties, is it possible to have an contract implied in fact?

2.2 Is a quasi-contract established if the Plaintiff was acting as a volunteer when he or she accepted the horse for boarding at this farm?

3. HOLDING
3.1 For 2.1, No.
3.2 For 2.2, No.

4. RATIONALE

4.1 For ISSUE 2.1

The source of the obligation in a contract “implied in fact,” as in express contracts, is in the intention of the parties. If there is no mutual agreement and “intent to promise” between the parties, there is no contract “implied in fact.”

4.2 For ISSUE 2.2

A quasi contract has no reference to the intentions or expressions of the parties. However, the obligation is imposed despite their intention. Additionally, the essential elements of a quasi-contract are (1) a benefit conferred upon one party by the other party, (2) appreciation by one party of such benefit, and (3) acceptance and retention b y one party of such benefit. Furthermore, if a performance is rendered by the other party without any request of one party, it is very unlikely to ask one party under a legal duty to pay compensation.