Analyze all or a portion of Bailey v. West, 249 A. 2d 414, Rhode Island Supreme Court 1969, using the Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion methodology in your comments below. Remember to “Blue Book” where appropriate.
Facts: Lame horse run around by Kelly, left with Bailey who knew of contract dispute, but still thought contract existed.
Issue: Whether contract existed?
Rule:
*General rule that “… if a performance is rendered by one person without any request by another, it is very unlikely that this person will be under a legal duty to pay compensation.” 1 A. Corbin, Contracts § 234.
*The Restatement of Restitution, § 2 (1937) provides: “A person who officiously confers a benefit upon another is not entitled to restitution therefor.”
Application: Unreasonable for Bailey to think that a contracted existed because so many ambiguities. Bailey’s conduct didn’t fully show intent.
Conclusion: For West.
Leave a Reply to Gloria Loyola Cancel reply