Robert Crosswhite Case study 10
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Central Lakes College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2130
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by KidHare2488
Summarize the Case in your own words:
This case is about a funeral home director that hired someone for demolition and clean up an
existing building and sidewalks where he wanted to build a crematorium. In the initial permits
for the work, the city permitted them to allow surface water to drain into adjacent streets and
alleys. After work had started the city approached the construction company with a new proposal
that involved locating and connecting it to a nearby underground sewer system.
While the funeral director had approved the original plan and willingly paid that part of the
contract, he did not approve the extra work of excavating and locating the sewer system. He
refused to apy for this part of the work which the company assumed implied consent even though
it was not in the contract.
The director resisted the additional work (maybe he could not afford the extra expense or did not
want to continue the project?) for whatever reason. The hired company did the work anyway and
was suing for not receiving payment for the extra work.
Indicate how it relates to the content for the week.
This week’s work was about contracts and how they are applied in real life situations and any
changes that apply to them during the process of carrying them out. In this case, the plaintiff
claimed an implied contract to do the additional work, but the defendant claimed it was not
approved nor was in the contract.
question 1: What facts must be established by a plaintiff to show the existence of an implied
contract?
According to the court of appeals in the case Roger’s Backhoe Service, Inc. v. Nichols, to
establish an implied contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate certain points.
First, both parties must either act to indicate agreement or verbally agree that it should be part of
the contract
Second, the services must have been done for the individual (Nichols) and not a third party (the
city). Basically, it must be with the expectation of being paid. Obviously, the backhoe company
expected to be paid, but Nichols argues that he did not approve it, so he did not see a reason to
pay for it.
Third, it must be beneficial to the recipient of the services.
Finally, the plaintiff must prove that the service performed was and is beneficial to the one the
work was done for.
In this case, these factors were at the core of the issue but in the end the court of appeals felt that
no benefit was given to the defendant.
question 2: How would the facts have to be changed to make an express contract?
The first condition above needed to happen. Both parties would have needed to verbally agree or
put in writing exactly what would be done and why.
question 3: What argument did Nichols make as to why there was no implied contract
here?
Nichols testified that he did not approve of the extra work. If he is telling them he does not
approve of the change, it cannot be considered implied to be part of the contract.
An approved permit is like a legal contract that gives permission for certain activities to take
place. To make a change to a permit eighter it has expired or go through legal channels to change
it. Having an approved permit would give Nichols a reasonable reason not to want added
expense and work.
Conclusion:
This case shows how effective communication between all parties involved can affect outcomes
and cause legal disputes. (In this case there are 3 parties: The city, the plaintiff, and the
defendant).
Did Nichols benefit from the extra work? Maybe... He already had an approved permit, and the
extra work caused the city to keep with that plan rather than changing it.
Was the work done for Nichols? That is questionable, since the city was the one changing the
work plan and Nichols stated that he did not approve of the change.
I think that Nicholes has the better point especially because he never once stated that he agreed
to go through with the sewer connection plan that the city came up with I don’t see why he
would be required to pay the company for this work that he didn’t agree to if anyone should pay
for the work it should be the city because they were the ones claiming it needed to be done.
Cite: 8.4 Roger’s Backhoe Service, Inc. v. Nichols 681 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 2004) Carter, J.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help