Ray Reilly's Tire Mart, Inc. v. F.P. Elnicki, Inc., 86-211

• Decision Date: 04 December 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-211,86-211
• Citation: 537 A.2d 994,149 Vt. 37
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: RAY REILLY'S TIRE MART, INC. v. F.P. ELNICKI, INC.

Page 994

537 A.2d 994

149 Vt. 37

RAY REILLY'S TIRE MART, INC. v. F.P. ELNICKI, INC.

No. 86-211.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Dec. 4, 1987.

See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.

James B. Anderson of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for plaintiff-appellant.

Biederman & Rakow, P.C., Rutland, for defendant-appellee.

Before ALLEN, C.J., PECK, J., BARNEY, C.J. (Ret.) and KEYSER, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

ALLEN, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff appeals the trial court's decision in an action brought to recover the price of tires supplied to defendant. We affirm.

Plaintiff supplied and installed tires on defendant's truck at the request of Foster Motors, Inc., d/b/a Mid-State Trucks. Defendant had purchased a dump truck from Foster Motors, which proved to be difficult to handle while hauling the heavy loads involved in defendant's excavation business. Foster Motors made several attempts to remedy the problem, including having the plaintiff replace the tire rims. At Foster Motors' request, a Michelin representative examined the truck at plaintiff's place of business and determined that some of the tires were inappropriate for the type of work done by defendant. Foster Motors contracted with plaintiff to supply and install new tires. Defendant's agent Jim Elnicki signed for their receipt.

Plaintiff billed Foster Motors $2,320 for the cost of the tires. Foster Motors did not pay the bill, and a few months later plaintiff billed defendant $2,932, a larger amount because Foster Motors was a volume customer and defendant was not. Foster Motors subsequently ceased doing business.

Plaintiff then brought this action for payment on open account and for unjust enrichment. The trial court found that a contract for the tires existed between plaintiff and Foster Motors and that there was never a contract between plaintiff and defendant.

The court also rejected plaintiff's claim that defendant had been unjustly enriched by the tires. The court found that providing tires conforming to defendant's needs was part of Foster Motors' obligation when it sold the truck to defendant. Defendant had, in essence, already paid for the tires when it purchased the truck. The court refused to force defendant to pay twice for suitable tires for its truck. The court also stated that the existence of an express contract between plaintiff and Foster Motors barred the court from implying a contract on a theory of unjust enrichment between plaintiff and defendant.

Plaintiff contends on appeal that the court below erred in determining that defendant had already paid for the tires and in ruling that the express contract bars an implied contract, since the express contract is now unenforceable because Foster Motors is no longer in business.

" '[F]indings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous when viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.' " Murray v. J & B International Trucks, Inc., 146 Vt. 458, 466, 508 A.2d 1351, 1356 (1986) (quoting Finley v. Williams, 142 Vt. 153, 155, 453 A.2d 85, 86 (1982)). When viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are correct.

The standard to be used in deciding a claim for unjust enrichment is "whether [defendant] received a benefit for which plaintiff should be compensated." Morrisville Lumber Co. v. Okcuoglu, 148 Vt. 180, 184, 531 A.2d 887, 889 (1987). "The law implies a promise to pay when a party receives a benefit and the retention of 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 the truck. However, the trial court...