Question

Carter Morley and Erena Erickson live side by side in town homes joined together by a shared wall. Both residences are in need of new exterior paint. On Monday, Morley calls a painter, Tom Sizemore, having selected his name from the classified section of the phone directory. Morley describes his address, the physical dimensions and structure of his home, and he agrees with Sizemore that the work will be performed that Friday. Sizemore estimates that with his crew of five, and given the relatively small size of the home, the work will only take one day to complete. Morley advises that although he will have to work a fourteen-hour day on Friday, he would like to have the work completed in his absence. In passing conversation with his neighbor Erickson, Morley advises her of his “home improvement” plans.

Early Friday morning, Sizemore and his team arrive at the address, but by mistake, they begin work on Erickson’s side of building. Although Erena is home, she does not object to the work, nor does she inform Sizemore and his crew of the mistake. Midway through the day, she offers them fresh-squeezed lemonade and ham sandwiches, and they heartily accept.

Upon completion of the work at 7:00 p.m. Friday evening, Sizemore knocks on Erena’s door and asks if “the man of the home” is present, that he would like Morley to review the work and pay the agreed-upon price for the work. Erena chuckles, and “breaks the news” that the painting crew has made a mistake, one to her benefit. Erickson proclaims “I do not owe you one dime, because you do not have a contract with me; I will give you ten minutes to remove yourself and your materials from my property, or I will call the police.”

Do Erickson and Sizemore have a contract? If so, why? If not, are there any other theories of recovery available to Sizemore? Please fully evaluate the chances for Sizemore being paid for his work.

Answer 1

No, Erickson and Sizemore do not have a contract. There is no contract, either verbal or written agreement of the work to be done.

For any contract to have in place there should be an offer and acceptance of it, here the painting was a voluntary work which was not objected to by Erickson.

There is no recovery as never ever were there any words which says that Erickson asked for it, she just did not object of what they were doing, which says that Erickson need not ask for anything that was not asked for and the act was voluntary.

Erickson could even ask for damage in case Sizemore asks for recovery as it could be claimed as damage to the flat and painting without permission.