Earhart v. William Low Co. - the plaintiff, and the...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Earhart v. William Low Co. 25 Cal. 3d 503 (1979) Fact: Operative Facts: A construction worker, at the request of the defendant, worked on a mobile home park in expectation to be paid for his work. He worked on not only the defendant’s property, but also the adjacent owner’s property, under the supervision of the defendant. He worked for 1 week, after being urged by the defendant, that they must start before the special use permit expires. They were then not paid. Issue: Whether Earhart can recover for the work he did. Rule: To recover through restitution, there must be a benefit to the defendant at the expense of
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the plaintiff, and the defendant retention of that benefit without compensating the plaintiff would be unfair. Rational: To assess the amount of restitution to which the plaintiff is entitled to, the court broaden the traditional rational of, the defendant only having to pay for the direct benefit they get from the plaintiff, they then broadened it to, the defendant has to pay for whatever they asked the plaintiff to do. Holding: The plaintiff can recover from the construction of both properties under the theory of restitution. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course CONTRACTS 111 taught by Professor Dellinger during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online