BUS-206 Discussion 4-1.docx - BUS-206 Business Law Module 4 Contracts Discussion 4-1 Show Me My Money(Reisenfeld Company v The Network Group Inc p 321

BUS-206 Discussion 4-1.docx - BUS-206 Business Law Module 4...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 4 pages.

BUS-206: Business Law Module 4: Contracts Discussion 4-1: Show Me My Money (Reisenfeld & Company v. The Network Group Inc., p. 321) Prompt: Why does the court see this case as involving a quasi-contract as opposed to an actual contract? What other case law does the court rely on in finding precedent/support for compensating Reisenfeld? Does this decision appear to follow the golden rule guideline set forth in Chapter 2 (pp. 27 and 28)? Describe another example of an implied-in-fact or quasi-contract that you have experienced or are mentioned in the text. For this week’s Discussion Post, I decided to choose the “Show Me My Money” case. The overall view of this case is Reisenfeld Co. claiming that BSI would not pay Reisenfeld Co. their commission on the sublease properties due to a quasi-contract. Therefore, to start off with, a quasi-contract is a court imposed contractual obligation to prevent unjust enrichment, also known as implied-in-law or not a true contract. The other type of contract is considered to be an express contact, which happens to be a contract where the terms and conditions are written or spoken and agreed upon between the parties while the terms of all the parties are laid out in the contract. A quasi-contract or implied contract is created from the parties involved in the contract and are not clearly established (Kubasek, p.319). For example, someone orders a pizza from his or her local pizza parlor and it is delivered to the wrong customer, thus receiving the wrong pizza order. From here, the individual does not correct the pizza delivery guy that he or she received the wrong the pizza and instead decides to keep the pizza, a quasi-contract could be issued by the court and require the individual to pay back the amount of pizza to the party that paid for the pizza. Meaning that the individual that received the wrong pizza and decided not to correct the delivery driver, he or she can be help accountable to pay for the pizza for the original individual that ordered the beer. As stated before, the quasi-contract is to prevent any party from gaining from the mix-up at the other parties’ expense, thus making the issue fair. In the Reisenfeld & Compnay v. The Network Group case, the court decided to conclude that this was a quasi-contract between the parties because there was a relationship involved in the case of landlord, contractor, and subcontractor. Thus, there was no express or implied contract between Reisenfeld & Company with BSI, the realtor, or the landlord for paying commissions for the real estate services.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture