Leslie Penny
LA 200 Contracts; Agency, week 1
Research Assignment #1 : Quasi Contracts
Bailey V. West
The
following case disputes weather the owner of a horse is liable for paying a
horse farm owner for boarding the horse in question for four years. The plaintiff claims that the defendant owes
him for the reasonable value of his services rendered when it comes to the
horses feedings, care and maintenance from May 3rd, 1962 through July 3rd,
1966. The court ruled that the owner was
not obligated to pay the horse farm owner who took care of said horse for all
those years.
The court
first held that the there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant
which stated the defendant was going to be held reliable for those services
rendered. The plaintiffs claim under the
theory of quasi-contract based on the defendant's unjust enrichment was
denied. The court's reasoning was that
the plaintiff was a mere volunteer who boarded and took care of it at his own
risk and knew that he might not be reimbursed for expenses that racked up.
The main
issue in this case is the questionable ownership of the horse. The horse was dropped off originally at the
plaintiffs farm (if I am understanding the court papers correctly) by the
driver who was merely shipping the horse, not the owner. The confusion lies in the fact that the
defendant did indeed purchase the horse from a Dr. Strauss and made
arrangements for the horse to be shipped to the buyer, the defendant, but after
that its gets shady. Once the horse arrived
the defendants trainer saw that the horse was lame who then notified the
defendant. At that point the defendant
didn't want to accept shipment for the lame horse, so he had his trainer make
arrangements to ship the horse back to the seller. The seller refused shipment of the horse because
he saw it was lame. At that point the driver, who shipped the
horse, had only one recourse and that was to call the defendants trainer with
questions on what now to do with the horse.
This is when information gets hazy.
No one took responsibility for who told the driver to drop the horse off
at the plaintiffs farm. The plaintiff
began sending the bill to who he thought was responsible of the horse, the
defendant. However, the defendant sent
those bill back to the plaintiff claiming he was not the owner of the horse nor
did he send the horse to the plaintiffs farm in the beginning.
In
conclusion, the plaintiff appealed the case which went to the Supreme Court
where it was denied and dismissed. From
my opinion, the plaintiff should never have taken on such a responsibility as
taking care of a horse, especially one that can be rather expensive, without
getting a written document or, in the very least, a verbal contract from the
actual owner. Accepting an animal, a
large one at that, from a mere driver without paperwork was very irresponsible
of the plaintiff. However, on the other
hand, even though there is no contract, with the plaintiff, the defendant is
obviously the owner of the horse and was irresponsible in not following through
with what the trainer was up to. The sad
part of this case is that the defendant didn't do what was morally right by
eventually picking up the horse from the plaintiff. Four years of out of site out of mind is
pitiful.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment