|
Posted by JoeSpareBedroom on May 20, 2008, 12:53 pm
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:38:33 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>
>>> trader4@optonline.net wrote:
>>>>> Cheri wrote:
>>>>>> HeyBub wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not? Same a building a fence - the neighbor is responsible for
>>>>>>> half the cost (unless they demur) under the principle of unjust
>>>>>>> enrichment. This is black-letter law.
>>>>
>>>> What nonsense. A neighbor is only responsible for half the cost of a
>>>> fence if:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - It's placed right on the property line
>>>>
>>>> 2 - They agree to split the cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, if you put up a fence on your own property, you pay for
>>>> it. And it has nothing to do with unjust enrichment, which
>>>> typically applies to someone making an obvious math mistake on a bill
>>>> or similar. And it surely doesn't apply to gutters on someone elses
>>>> house either. Following that specious logic, I could do $50K worth
>>>> of landscaping and then send part of the bill to a couple of
>>>> neighbors, on the theory that it raised the value of their homes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. This is well settled in contract law.
>>>
>>> "The doctrine of quasi-contract, also known as a contract implied in
>>> law,
>>> is based primarily on the principle of unjust enrichment. Unlike a
>>> contract implied in fact, a contract implied in law is imposed, or
>>> created, without regard to the promise of the party to be bound. The
>>> duty
>>> which engenders a quasi-contractual obligation is most often based upon
>>> the principle of unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment occurs where a
>>> benefit is conferred upon a person in circumstances in which retention
>>> by
>>> him of that benefit without paying its reasonable value would be unjust.
>>> Thus, quantum meruit [reasonable value] is a remedy for the enforcement
>>> of
>>> a quasi-contractual obligation.
>>>
>>> "Courts generally recognize that the essential elements of
>>> quasi-contract
>>> or contract implied in law are: (1) a benefit conferred upon the
>>> defendant
>>> by the plaintiff; (2) appreciation by the defendant of the fact of such
>>> benefit; and (3) acceptance and retention by the defendant of that
>>> benefit
>>> under circumstances in which retention without payment would be
>>> inequitable. The most significant requirement is that the enrichment to
>>> the defendant be unjust, and that retention of the benefit be
>>> inequitable."
>>>
>>> There are, of course, exceptions. "Assent by silence" governs. The party
>>> NOT building the fence is obliged to voice an objection at the first
>>> notice of fence building, else he is assumed to agree to the fence and
>>> its
>>> cost. The construction must be reasonable. If the builder uses hand-hewn
>>> stone imported from Belgium and topped with brass spires and gargoyles,
>>> the non-builder may be responsible for only half of a barbed-wire fence,
>>> if barbed-wire is the usual fencing material in the neighborhood. And so
>>> on. There're a bunch of caveats when you get down in the weeds, but the
>>> essential element remains the same.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>How odd that I've never gotten a bill from two neighbors who built fences
>>along our property lines. I'm quite certain that no matter what you've
>>posted above, our town justice would've kicked the neighbors' out of the
>>courtroom if they tried to get me to share the cost of their fences.
>>
>
> The town was overjoyed that they were fencing you in, and probably
> paid your half out of gratitude.
>
>
Well, it kept one neighbor's canine trash beast out of my yard. So, the
fence was cheaper for the town than sending the dog non-catcher over twice a
week.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap