Britton v Turner - N/A PDF

Preview

Summary

N/A...

Description

Britton v Turner Facts:  Britton agreed to work for turner for one year and be paid 120$  Britton quit and December and sued turner for 100$ for the labor he did perform  Court awarded britton 95$  Turner appealed Issue: was britton entitled to recover from turner even though he breached the contract by quitting early? Holding: Britton cant recover damages but he could recover quantum meruit for the value of the services he did perform while working for turner Quantum meruit- as much as he deserved  A party who has provided a benefit to someone may sue for the value of that benefit, even if that party hasn’t completely satisfied the contract  If the plf made an effort and the plf benefited from that efford itd be unfair to deny the plf any recovery  A party who party who provides goods or services to a recipient can seek to be paid the reasonable value of those goods or services if the party accepts them and benefits then he must pay  A plf recovery in quantum meruit is reducible by the other partys damages resulting from the plfs failure to satisfy the contract

The employer is saying we have an obligation to pay you a 120$ subject to you working the full term, but you did not work the full term

Mattei v Hopper Facts:  Mattei wanted to buy land from hopper and came to an agreement and recorded it on a deposit receipt which said mattei would pay a 1K deposit, he had 120 days to examine the title and pay the remainder, at final payment hopper would deed the property to mattei. These were subject to mattei obtaining enough tenants before paying the remainder.  Hopper refused to complete the sale even when mattei said he had tenants and the money  Mattei sued hopper for breach of contract  Court ruled for Def saying the “contract” lacked consideration  Mattei appealed Holding: a satisfaction clause in a contract doesn’t render the promise without consideration Supreme court reversed...