BUS 206 Discussion 4.docx - BUS 206 Discussion 4 Show Me My...

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

BUS 206: Discussion 4 Show Me My Money (Reisenfeld & Company v. The Network Group Inc., p. 321) 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 is mentioned in the text. In the case Reisenfeld & Co. v. The Network Group Inc., Reisenfeld, a real estate broker for Dick’s Clothing and Sporting Goods (Dick’s) sued The Network and BSI in state court for $160,320 in commission that he had not been paid. According to an executed assignment and assumption agreements, BSI was to pay The Network a commission, and in turn, The Network was responsible to pay the $1 per square foot of commission to Reisenfeld based on their commission agreement with Reisenfeld. But there was no direct agreement between Reisenfeld and BSI.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture