Anderson v. Schwegel
1990 Ida. App. LEXIS 150, 118 Idaho 362, 796 P.2d 1035 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party requests services under what is later determined to be a non-existent contract due to mutual misunderstanding, the proper measure of recovery in quasi-contract is the reasonable value of the services provided, not the resulting increase in the value of the property.
Facts:
- In April 1980, George Anderson and Ronald Schwegel orally agreed Schwegel would 'restore' Anderson's 1935 Plymouth for $6,000, but each had a different understanding of the term's scope.
- Schwegel understood 'restore' to mean only body work, while Anderson understood it to include both body and engine work.
- In 1981, upon learning that engine repairs were necessary, Anderson authorized Schwegel to sublet the work and directly discussed the repairs with the subcontractor.
- In December 1982, Anderson received an itemized bill exceeding the original $6,000 price, which included costs for both body and engine work, but expressed no disagreement and made an additional payment.
- Anderson subsequently assented to having further work done to make the automobile 'roadworthy,' which Schwegel performed and sublet.
- The final bill totaled $9,800.27, of which Anderson had paid $5,000.
- When Schwegel demanded the remaining balance of $4,800.27, Anderson refused to pay, contending the total contract price was only $6,000.
Procedural Posture:
- George Anderson filed an action in the magistrate court (trial court) against Ronald Schwegel, seeking enforcement of a $6,000 contract and possession of his car.
- Schwegel filed a counterclaim to recover the unpaid balance of $4,800.27.
- Following a bench trial, the magistrate determined no contract existed and entered judgment for Schwegel for $4,800.27 under a theory of quasi-contract.
- Anderson, as appellant, appealed the magistrate's judgment to the district court.
- The district court, acting in its appellate capacity, affirmed the magistrate's judgment.
- Anderson, as appellant, then appealed the district court's decision to the Idaho Court of Appeals, with Schwegel as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a quasi-contract action arising from a mutual misunderstanding of a material contract term, is the proper measure of recovery the reasonable value of the services provided at the defendant's request, or the increase in the value of the defendant's property?
Opinions:
Majority - Walters, Chief Judge
Yes, the proper measure of recovery is the reasonable value of the services provided. The court holds that where a property owner requests services, demonstrating a desire to have them, he is liable for their reasonable value even if they do not increase the economic value of his property. This contrasts with cases of mistaken improvements to property where recovery is limited to the property's enhanced value. Here, Anderson either requested the services or assented to them being performed for his benefit. Therefore, the trial court correctly valued the benefit conferred upon Anderson as the reasonable value of the services provided by Schwegel, not the increase in the car's market value.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the distinction in quasi-contract law between recovery for mistaken improvements and recovery for requested services. By focusing on the recipient's request or assent, the court provides a clearer framework for measuring unjust enrichment. The decision ensures that service providers are compensated for the reasonable value of their labor and materials when the recipient has demonstrated a desire for those services, preventing the recipient from unfairly benefiting from a misunderstanding while still receiving the work they wanted. This precedent discourages parties from using a contractual ambiguity to avoid paying for services they knowingly accepted.
