Trimmer v Van Bomel

NY: Supreme Court, New York
107 Misc. 2d 201, 434 NYS 2d 82 (1980)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An alleged express oral contract is unenforceable if its material terms, such as the amount of compensation, time of performance, and manner of payment, are too vague and indefinite. Furthermore, a court will not imply a contract to compensate for services that are ordinarily rendered gratuitously out of friendship and mutual regard.

Facts:

Plaintiff, Mr. Trimmer, a 67-year-old tour operator, met defendant, Mrs. Van Bomel, a wealthy widow, on one of his tours.
At Van Bomel's behest, Trimmer gave up his business to become her full-time companion, escort, and confidante.
For five years, Van Bomel paid for all of Trimmer's expenses, including rent, travel, tailored clothing, and provided him with three cars and a monthly stipend, totaling over $300,000.
Trimmer alleged that in addition to this support, Van Bomel orally promised to create a fund sufficient to pay for his 'sumptuous living' for the rest of his life.
After five years, the relationship and Van Bomel's financial support abruptly ended.
During their entire relationship, the parties never discussed a specific dollar amount for the alleged fund, when it would be established, or how it would be paid.

Procedural Posture:

Trimmer (plaintiff) filed a suit against Van Bomel (defendant) in a New York trial court.
The complaint included two causes of action: one for breach of an express oral contract and another in quantum meruit (implied contract).
Van Bomel initially moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial but granted Van Bomel permission to renew the motion after the completion of discovery.
After depositions of both parties were concluded, Van Bomel renewed her motion for summary judgment in the trial court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an alleged express oral agreement to provide for a companion's 'sumptuous living' for the rest of his life enforceable when the material terms, such as the specific amount, timing, and method of payment, were never specified?

Opinions:

Majority - Greenfield, J.

No. An alleged express oral agreement is not enforceable where its material terms are too vague and indefinite to allow a court to determine the parties' intent and obligations. The court first dismissed the plaintiff's claim for implied contract (quantum meruit), reasoning that services rendered between friends out of mutual affection and regard, such as companionship, are presumed to be gratuitous. The court stated, 'An obligation to pay for friendship is not ordinarily to be implied—it is too crass. Friendship, like virtue, must be its own reward.' As for the express contract claim, the court found it fatally indefinite. The term 'sumptuous living' is subjective and provides no objective standard for calculating damages. The depositions revealed that no specific amount, timing, method of payment, or duration was ever discussed, leaving the entire matter to the defendant's discretion. A promise that 'she would do it in some way' is not a binding contract but merely a vague reassurance that the plaintiff 'would be taken care of,' which is unenforceable under established contract law principles.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the fundamental contract principle that an agreement must be definite in its material terms to be legally enforceable. It highlights the court's strong reluctance to intervene in personal relationships by implying contractual obligations for services, like companionship, that are presumed to be gratuitous. The decision serves as a significant barrier to claims for 'companiomony' by requiring a clear, express agreement with specific terms, thereby distinguishing personal arrangements from commercial employment. This ruling protects individuals from 'emotion-laden afterthought' claims following the breakdown of non-marital relationships where no clear financial contract was formed.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Trimmer v Van Bomel (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"