|
Posted by HeyBub on May 20, 2008, 10:54 pm
Mr.Spock wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> In a "normal" town and not some flea bitten place, the code will have
> the person erecting the fence to place the fence a few inches inside
> the property line, so the entire fence is owned by the fence builder.
Sure. Ownership is not the issue; benefit is. Paying for the benefit does
not convey interest in the property.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap