Gulfstream Services v. Hot Energy Services
907 So. 2d 96, 2005 WL 676365, 2005 La. App. LEXIS 664 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a party that has been enriched without cause at the expense of another is bound to compensate the impoverished party. This remedy, known as enrichment without cause, is subsidiary and available only when no other remedy at law, such as a contract, exists.
Facts:
- Hot Energy Services, Inc. (Hot), an oil field services business, required Coast Guard certified tanks to comply with a cease and desist order.
- In April 2002, Hot contacted Gulfstream Services, Inc. (Gulfstream) to obtain such tanks.
- The parties discussed various options, including lease, lease-purchase, and sale, and a daily rental rate of $75.00 per tank, but never finalized a formal agreement.
- While negotiations were ongoing, Hot requested and accepted delivery of two 100-barrel portable marine tanks from Gulfstream on April 20, 2002.
- Hot used the tanks in its business for approximately seven months, from April until November 2002.
- During this period, Gulfstream sent several invoices requesting rental payments, but Hot made no payments.
- Hot returned the tanks to Gulfstream on November 27, 2002, after receiving permission to use a different type of tank.
Procedural Posture:
- Gulfstream Services, Inc. filed a petition on an open account against Hot Energy Services, Inc. in the trial court.
- After a trial, the court found that no open account or other agreement existed between the parties.
- The trial court nevertheless awarded Gulfstream $31,050.00 for Hot's use of the equipment, with interest from the date of judicial demand, and denied Gulfstream's request for attorney fees.
- Hot Energy Services, Inc. (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
- Gulfstream Services, Inc. (appellee) answered the appeal, again seeking attorney fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party that provides equipment to another party without a finalized contract have a right to recover payment under the doctrine of enrichment without cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Welch, J.
Yes. A party that provides equipment without a finalized contract can recover under the doctrine of enrichment without cause. The court affirmed that no contract or open account existed between the parties. However, it found that Gulfstream had established the five elements for a claim of enrichment without cause under La. C.C. art. 2298: (1) Hot was enriched by using the tanks in its business; (2) Gulfstream was impoverished by having a justified expectation of gain prevented; (3) a direct connection existed between the enrichment and impoverishment; (4) there was an absence of justification or cause for the enrichment; and (5) no other remedy at law was available. The court upheld the damage award as a reasonable measure of compensation but amended the judgment to have interest accrue from the date of judgment, not the date of judicial demand, as is proper for unliquidated damages.
Analysis:
This case serves as a key example of the application of Louisiana's quasi-contractual remedy of 'enrichment without cause' (actio de in rem verso) as an equitable fallback when a contract claim fails. The decision reinforces that Louisiana's fact-pleading system allows courts to grant appropriate relief based on the facts proven, even if the plaintiff's initial legal theory is incorrect. It establishes that a previously discussed, though un-agreed upon, rental rate can form a reasonable basis for calculating damages, which are measured by the lesser of the defendant's enrichment or the plaintiff's impoverishment. The case also provides a clear precedent on when interest begins to accrue for such unliquidated, quasi-contractual claims.
Unlock the full brief for Gulfstream Services v. Hot Energy Services