Martin v. Little, Brown & Co.
450 A.2d 984 (1982)
Rule of Law:
A person who voluntarily provides information to another without any discussion of payment cannot recover compensation, as no contract can be implied in fact, and the person's status as a volunteer precludes recovery in quasi-contract for unjust enrichment.
Facts:
- On September 28, 1976, James L. Martin sent a letter to a publisher informing them that a book titled 'Planning Your Financial Future' had plagiarized portions of their publication, 'How to Buy Stocks'.
- Martin's letter offered to provide his copy of the infringing book, in which he had highlighted the plagiarized passages and made marginal references.
- In response, Little, Brown and Company, Inc. invited Martin to send his annotated copy of the book.
- Martin sent the book, and Little, Brown and Company acknowledged its receipt.
- The correspondence between Martin and Little, Brown and Company did not contain any discussion of payment or compensation for Martin's information or services.
- After learning that Little, Brown and Company was pursuing a copyright infringement claim based on his information, Martin demanded compensation for his services.
- Little, Brown and Company denied any contractual obligation but offered Martin a $200 honorarium, which he retained but did not cash.
Procedural Posture:
- James L. Martin filed a pro se complaint in assumpsit (an action for breach of contract) against Little, Brown and Company, Inc. in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- Little, Brown and Company filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Martin's complaint.
- Martin, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
- Little, Brown and Company is the appellee in this appeal.
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 contract, either implied-in-fact or implied-in-law (quasi-contract), arise when an individual voluntarily provides unsolicited information to a publisher about a copyright infringement, which the publisher then uses to its advantage?
Opinions:
Majority - Wieand, Judge
No, a contract does not arise when an individual acts as a volunteer by providing unsolicited information without any reasonable expectation of payment. For a contract implied in fact to exist, the parties' actions must show a mutual intention to contract. Here, Martin's initial letter did not suggest he expected payment, and the publisher's response was merely an invitation to send the material, not an offer to pay. A promise to pay is only implied when services are rendered in circumstances where the performer reasonably expects payment, which was absent here. Similarly, there can be no recovery in quasi-contract. While quasi-contract prevents unjust enrichment, a party cannot recover if they were a mere volunteer. Martin offered the information without condition or expectation of payment, making him a volunteer with no right to restitution. Finally, the threat of filing a counterclaim is not the kind of 'extreme and outrageous' conduct required to sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the volunteer doctrine in contract and restitution law, clarifying that a party cannot unilaterally create a right to payment for unsolicited services. It establishes a strong precedent against claims from individuals who provide unsolicited information or 'tips' and later demand a share of any resulting profits. The ruling underscores the importance of clearly establishing terms of compensation before rendering services if payment is expected. The case serves as a cautionary tale for those who provide valuable information without first securing a contractual agreement.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Martin v. Little, Brown & Co. (1982)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"