Fieldhouse Landscape, Inc. v. Gentile
| Decision Date | 07 February 1961 |
| Citation | 12 Wis.2d 418,107 N.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | FIELDHOUSE LANDSCAPE, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Respondent, v. Frank R. GENTILE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Oldenburg, Manzer & Engel, Madison, for appellant.
LaFollette, Sinykin, Doyle & Anderson, Madison, for respondent.
The defendants contend that the measure of damages in quantum meruit cases is the value of the benefit received by the defendants; that there is no evidence in this particular case as to the benefit received by the defendants and therefore the trial court's award of damages was either arbitrary or reached by an improper application of law. Several cases are cited which support their contentions as they interpret them.
The cases relied upon by the defendants can all be distinguished from the present case. To do so herein would unduly lengthen this opinion. The distinction between contracts implied in fact and quasi or constructive contracts which are legal fictions created by law for reasons of justice are often misunderstood. For a discussion of the distinction between the two see 12 Am.Jur., Contracts, pp. 498 to 504, secs. 4, 5 and 6; 17 C.J.S. Contracts §§ 4 and 6, pp. 317 and 322. Some discussion thereon is had in Shulse v. City of Mayville, 223 Wis. 624, 271 N.W. 643, wherein reference is made to Restatement, Contracts, sec. 5.
In the present case there was no express contract between the parties or, as the trial court stated, there was no meeting of the minds. The plaintiff submitted a written bid which was not formally accepted, but the defendants wrote additional items upon the proposal which were not communicated to the plaintiff. However, it is undisputed, and the trial court so found, that the plaintiff furnished materials and performed labor at the request of the defendants. Under all of the circumstances there was an implied promise on the part of the defendants to pay therefor.
The measure of damages in such cases is the reasonable value of the materials furnished and labor performed. The rule is stated in Wojahn v. National Union Bank, 144 Wis. 646, 667, 129 N.W. 1068, 1077, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willard v. Buck
...20 Wis.2d 238, 121 N.W.2d 744 (1963); In re Kuepper's Estate, 12 Wis.2d 577, 107 N.W.2d 621 (1961); Fieldhouse Landscape, Inc. v. Gentile, 12 Wis.2d 418, 107 N.W.2d 491 (1961); cf. Bangle v. Holland Realty Inv. Co., 80 Nev. 331, 393 P.2d 138 (1964); Annotation, 7 A.L.R.2d 8 (1949); 3 A. Cor......
-
Stack Const. Co. v. Chenenoff
...by the plaintiff and for which the defendant should reasonably have recognized his obligation to pay. Fieldhouse Landscape v. Gentile (1961) 12 Wis.2d 418, 107 N.W.2d 491; Estate of Beilke (1953), 263 Wis. 372, 57 N.W.2d 402; Estate of St. Germain (1945), 246 Wis. 409, 17 N.W.2d 582; Wojahn......
-
NORTHERN CLEARING, INC. v. LARSON-JUHL, INC., 04-0010.
...meruit the reasonable value of the services involved in cutting 107,000 cubic yards of soil.); see also Fieldhouse Landscape, Inc. v. Gentile, 12 Wis. 2d 418, 107 N.W.2d 491 (1961) (An implied promise on part of homeowners to pay for landscaping arose where landscaper furnished materials an......
- Burmek v. Miller Brewing Co.