“A quasi contract, implied in law, arises where a transaction between parties gives them mutual rights or obligations, but does not involve an express agreement between them.”
How later courts described this case
- “A quasi contract, implied in law, arises where a transaction between parties gives them mutual rights or obligations, but does not involve an express agreement between them.”
- complaint and answer formulate issues of an action and may constitute admissions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PEDERSON, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur but find it necessary to add the following:
*254 In this case Beck claimed that Lind used 1,000 bushels of oats worth fifty cents a bushel. Lind denied that he used any of the oats. The trial court concluded that Beck was entitled to an award of $300 for 600 bushels used.
The majority opinion finds this award to be erroneous because there is no evidence to support it. Not in every case where the only testimony on damage is either zero or $500 can we conclude that a $300 award is not supported by the evidence, but when there is a strong inference that the trier of fact compromised between the right to recover and the proved damages sustained, we are justified in concluding that there is error. See Dege v. Produce Exchange Bank of St. Paul, 212 Minn. 44 , 2 N.W.2d 423, 425 (1942), and Schore v. Mueller, 290 Minn. 186 , 186 N.W.2d 699, 702 (1971).