Eddy v. Watson
| Decision Date | 07 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 444-81,444-81 |
| Citation | 450 A.2d 1140,141 Vt. 577 |
| Parties | Doris EDDY v. Nancy D. WATSON. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Langrock, Sperry, Parker & Stahl, Middlebury, for plaintiff-appellee.
Richard F. Taylor, Middlebury, for defendant-appellant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and BILLINGS, HILL, UNDERWOOD and PECK, JJ.
Defendant-appellant Nancy Watson appeals from the trial court's decision and resulting judgment holding her liable to plaintiff-appellee Doris Eddy for the reasonable value of boarding two horses. We affirm.
Since the parties waived findings of fact we must assume that the trial court made all findings necessary to support the result. Chittenden Trust Co. v. Maryanski, 138 Vt. 240, 243, 415 A.2d 206, 208 (1980). In October 1978 defendant brought two horses to plaintiff's stables and left them in her care. The animals were fed and cared for by plaintiff from that date until sometime in May of 1981. Not surprisingly, the question of compensation soon reared its head.
On December 17, 1979, plaintiff formally demanded payment from defendant. None was forthcoming, and plaintiff brought suit in April of 1980 alleging that she was entitled to recover damages on either the basis of (1) an express contract, or (2) unjust enrichment. On the other hand, defendant claimed that plaintiff was to have the use of the horses for training purposes in lieu of monetary compensation.
After a jury-waived trial the trial court held in favor of the plaintiff and ruled that although there had been no express contract, plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair value of boarding the horses--$2.00 per day--on the basis of an "implied contract." Damages were, however, limited to a reasonable period, i.e., from the date the horses were brought to plaintiff until the date of the first demand for payment. Defendant appeals, claiming that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence.
At the outset we note that although the court employed the term "implied contract" in its opinion, it is clear that the judgment is grounded on the theory of quasi contract. Under this theory "the law raises a promise to pay when a party receives a benefit and the retention of the benefit would be inequitable." Wilson v. Alexander, 139 Vt. 279, 280, 428 A.2d 1089, 1090 (1981). This fictitious promise arises regardless of, indeed sometimes contrary to, the intentions of the party bound. Id.; Kinsley v. Willis, 120 Vt. 103, 132 A.2d 163 (1957).
There is no argument here that plaintiff was a volunteer when she began to care for defendant's animals. Finnegan v. State, 138 Vt. 603, 606, 420 A.2d 104, 106 (1980); Morse v. Kenney, 87 Vt. 445, 450, 89 A. 865, 868 (1914). It was defendant who initiated the transaction, which concededly has been to her benefit. Moreover, the court recognized that it was reasonable under the circumstances for plaintiff to expect to receive compensation. Thus, the evidence introduced at trial amply supports the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of her services.
We also reject defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donaldson v. McNew, 1 CA-CV 09-0689
...For example, the consideration for pasturage services need not be monetary and may provide for in-kind services. See Eddy v. Watson, 450 A.2d 1140, 1140-41 (Vt. 1982) (finding a quasi-contract where the plaintiff provided pasturage services and trained horses in exchange for use of the hors......
-
Ray Reilly's Tire Mart, Inc. v. F.P. Elnicki, Inc., 86-211
...the benefit would be inequitable." Cedric Electric, Inc. v. Shea, 144 Vt. 85, 86, 472 A.2d 757, 757 (1984) (citing Eddy v. Watson, 141 Vt. 577, 579, 450 A.2d 1140, 1141 (1982)). There is no question that defendant received a benefit from the installation by plaintiff of the proper tires on ......
-
Atwood v. Atwood, 82-117
...and therefore we must assume that the trial court made all the findings necessary to support its judgment order. Eddy v. Watson, 141 Vt. 577, 579, 450 A.2d 1140, 1140 (1982). However, even assuming that the court in the instant case made findings that support its order disposing of the 14.4......
-
Cedric Elec., Inc. v. Shea, 82-235
...implies a promise to pay when a party receives a benefit and the retention of the benefit would be inequitable. Eddy v. Watson, 141 Vt. 577, 579, 450 A.2d 1140, 1141 (1982). Such is clearly the case here. The owner of the house, Donna Shea, has received a benefit in the form of the electric......