o ISSUE does a quantum meruit exist Must 1 services were rendered 2 services

O issue does a quantum meruit exist must 1 services

This preview shows page 5 - 6 out of 6 pages.

o ISSUE : does a quantum meruit exist? Must: 1. services were rendered 2. services were knowingly and voluntarily accepted 3. services were not given gratuitously o DECISION : the court ruled in favor of Scheerer because it found that it had satisfied the rule for quantum meruit Case in Point – Qwest Wireless: o Qwest Wireless, LLC, provides wireless phone services in Arizona and thirteen other states. Qwest marketed and sold handset insurance to its customers, although it did not have a license to sell insurance in Arizona or in any other state. Patrick and Vicki Van Zanen sued Qwest for unjust enrichment based on its receipt of sales commissions for the handset insurance. The court agreed that Qwest had violated the insurance-licensing statute, but found that the commissions did not constitute unjust enrichment because the customers had, in fact, received the insurance. Qwest had not retained a benefit (the commissions) without paying for it (providing insurance); thus, the Van Zanens and other customers did not suffer unfair detriment. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS Plain language laws : enacted by federal government and a majority of the states to help avoid difficulty in which parties are not familiar with the legal terminology used in a contract (parties agree that a contract has been formed but disagree on its meaning or legal effect Plain meaning rule : when a contract’s writing is clear and unequivocal, a court will enforce it according to its obvious terms o The meaning of the terms must be determined from the face of the instrument (from the written document alone) o If a contract’s words appear to be clear and unambiguous, a court cannot consider extrinsic evidence (evidence not contained in the document itself) o If a contract’s terms are unclear or ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be admissible to clarify the meaning of the contract Case 10.2 – Wagner v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. o BACKGROUND : The Wagners had a contract to 50% of the profits. This contact was sold to Columbia Pictures and when they produced two new movies, they did not share profits with the Wagners. The court ruled against the Wagners and they appealed on the basis that during negotiation certain terms had been agreed upon. o ISSUE : is extrinsic evidence to be considered when a contract breach is in dispute? Under the parol evidence rule, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict express terms in a written contract or to explain what the agreement was. The agreement is the writing itself. Parol evidence cannot be admitted to show intention independent of an unambiguous written instrument 5
Image of page 5
Ch. 10 – Nature and Terminology o DECISION : The court ruled against the Wagners. Parol Evidence does not matter in a breach of contract case, only the plain language of the contract itself.
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 6 pages?

  • Fall '08
  • Staff
  • Business Law Outlines

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture