finding no contract implied in law because it related to an expressed contract plaintiff was operating under when performing services to which he based unjust enrichment claim
How later courts described this case
- finding no contract implied in law because it related to an expressed contract plaintiff was operating under when performing services to which he based unjust enrichment claim
- “A party to a valid express contract is bound by the 9 provisions of that contract, and may not disregard the same and bring an action on 10 an implied contract relating to the same matter, in contravention of the express 11 contract.”
- “A party to a valid express contract is bound by the provisions of that contract, and may not disregard the same and bring an action on an implied contract relating to the same matter, in contravention of the express contract.”
- "A person confers a benefit upon another if he gives to the other possession of or some other interest in money, land, chattels, or choses in action, ... or in any way adds to the other's security or advantage.... The word 'benefit,' therefore, denotes any form of advantage." (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Millard, J.
(dissenting)—If, as admitted by the demurrer, appellant provided necessary data respecting construction of the bridge, which information was accepted and used by respondents, the demurrer should have been overruled, whereupon respondents could have answered and on the issues thus framed appellant would have been required to sustain the burden of proving his allegations; therefore, I dissent.
July 16, 1943. Petition for rehearing stricken.