Plate v. Durst
42 W. Va. 63, 32 L.R.A. 404, 24 S.E. 580 (1896)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A promise of future compensation, even if secretly intended as a joke, can rebut the presumption that services rendered between family members are gratuitous if the promise is reasonably relied upon by the party rendering the services. The law may imply a quasi-contract to prevent the promisor from being unjustly enriched.
Facts:
- In 1885, at age twelve, Amelia C. Plate went to live with her brother-in-law, George L. Durst.
- Plate lived as a member of the family but also performed extensive services, both domestic and in Durst's catering and confectionery business.
- After Plate had been there for five years, Durst told her, "when you are with me ten years, I will give you one thousand dollars."
- On another occasion, Durst remarked that when Plate married, he would give her one thousand dollars and a diamond ring.
- Plate never received or demanded wages, viewing the money and gifts she received not as compensation.
- In 1894, following a family disagreement, Durst told Plate to leave his home.
- Durst refused to compensate Plate for her years of service, later claiming his promises of payment were made in jest.
Procedural Posture:
- Amelia C. Plate initiated an action against George L. Durst in the Circuit Court of Ohio county to recover the value of her services.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Plate for eight hundred and seventy-seven dollars and forty cents.
- During the trial, Durst's motion to exclude the plaintiff's evidence was overruled.
- After the verdict, the trial court overruled Durst's motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
- The circuit court entered a judgment in favor of Plate.
- Durst (petitioner) appealed the judgment to the higher court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a person be held liable for the reasonable value of services rendered by a family member if the person made promises of future compensation that were reasonably understood to be serious, even if the person making the promises secretly intended them as a joke?
Opinions:
Majority - Dent, Judge
Yes. A person can be held liable for the reasonable value of services when their promises of compensation are reasonably relied upon, regardless of their secret intent to jest. The court found that while services between family members are presumed to be gratuitous, this presumption can be rebutted by facts and circumstances showing an expectation of payment. Durst's promises, such as offering $1,000 after ten years of service, were reasonably understood by Plate to be serious, inducing her to continue providing valuable labor. The court stated it would "take the joker at his word," holding that a person is estopped from denying the sincerity of their conduct when it misleads another to their detriment. Even if there was no express contract, the law implies a quasi-contract to prevent Durst from being unjustly enriched by his deceit. Durst obtained Plate's labor through promises and then sought to avoid payment by claiming he was not in earnest, a position the law will not condone.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational example of the objective theory of contract formation and the doctrine of quasi-contract. It establishes that a party's subjective, unexpressed intent (e.g., to be joking) is irrelevant if their outward conduct creates a reasonable belief in the other party that a promise has been made. The decision solidifies the principle that courts will impose a legal obligation to pay for services (a quasi-contract) to prevent unjust enrichment, particularly when deceit is involved. This precedent significantly limits the "it was a joke" defense in contract-like disputes and clarifies that a promise, even if disavowed, can serve as powerful evidence to rebut the presumption of gratuitous services in a family context.
