Question

1. Over the course of six years, David Hix, on behalf of his company HAD Enterprises, had repeatedly asked Wanda Galloway, who owned the property adjacent to Hix’s, to allow him to fill in the pond on her property and to regrade her property to avoid flooding and mosquito problems that plagued both properties. Galloway finally agreed to let Hix do the work on her land. Hix claimed that, in exchange for his labor, he requested to be allowed to use the improved land for parking, either for himself or for HAD Enterprises. Galloway recalled no such agreement. After roughly two years of extensive work by Hix on both his and Galloway’s land (during which time Galloway apparently expressed concern several times to Hix about the unexpectedly large scope of the work he was doing), Galloway instructed Hix to stop. Even after all that time, the pond was only partially filled. Nonetheless, Hix submitted to Galloway a bill totaling $14,972 for the work he had done to her land. Galloway refused to pay, saying she had never agreed to pay Hix anything for the work and had agreed to allow him to commence the work only because it seemed so important to him. Hix sued Galloway for the cost of his work on the land. If he claims Galloway has breached a contract between them, will he succeed on that theory? Even if there is no contract between the two, could he recover under the doctrine of quasi-contract?

Answer 1

Quasi-contract is not actually a contract as there is an absence of all the necessary elements of forming a contract but it is legally enforceable. This contract is imposed by law and it is the obligation of both parties to agree with the circumstances even without the agreement.

Although the offer and acceptance rule as it is only applied based on cases. Quasi-contract mainly aims to prevent one party from getting benefits from the other party's expenses. As there is no contract so it becomes difficult sometimes to identify the breached party. But in this contract, it is assumed that the acceptance of one party generally creates an expectation of payment. It is also to be seen that the plaintiff must have done some services or have furnished a tangible item in return for a payment. Like in this case, Hix started filling the pond in Wanda's property as both of them has agreed to do so.

So, here, although Wanda has tried to stop Hix many times during the work, as Wanda refused to pay Hix the billed amount, she has breached the contract between them. Hix thus can recover the refund under the doctrine of quasi-contract.

Hope this helps:)