Barry vs. Barbour

Barry vs. Barbour - refused to pay Barbour didn’t set up...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 5/13/2009 rmf34 Berry vs. Barbour (Plaintiff and defendant in Error) Judge(s): O’Neal Court: Supreme court of Oklahoma (Location, Date): Dec 1954 Plaintiff: Charles Berry Case Summary: Barbour’s building caught on fire when Berry’s group was working on installing an I-beam. Barbour was in Europe at the time and Berry (in good faith?) repaired the damages caused by the fire fighters who damaged part of the roof in an effort to put out the fire. Berry Charged reasonable amount of money for the repairs. Barbour
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: refused to pay. Barbour didn’t set up to have anyone be the contact person for his building when he was out of the country. Barbour must pay to cover the cost of the repairs. This is considered a “ quasi-contract .” Defense: Barbour and Partners Verdict: Barbour must pay for reasonable repairs. Law and Economics Notes: It makes more sense economically for Barbour to bear the risk in his building. Unless, Berry acted in complete negligence in his work that caused the fire to begin with....
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online