3. YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM John Stevens owned prdated apartment that he

Question

3. YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM John Stevens owned prdated apartment that he rented to James and Cora Chesney for a low rent. Th eys began to remodel and rehabilitate the unit. Over a four-year period, the new bathrooms, carpeted the floors, installed new septic and heating dila hesn installed two systems, and rewired, replumbed, and painted. Stevens periodically stopped by and Chesneys with saw the work in progress. The Chesneys transformed the unit into a respectable an eviction notice. The Chesneys counterclaimed, seeking the value of the work they pay the Chesneys exactly the amount he agreed to pay: nothing. The parties never apartment. Three years after their work was done, Stevens served the had done. Are they entitled to it? Argument for Stevens: Mr. Stevens is willing to contracted for the Chesneys to fix up the apartment. In fact, they never even discussed such an agreement. The Chesneys are making the absurd argument that anyone who chooses to perform certain work, without ever discussing it with another party, can finish the job and then charge it to the other person. If the Chesneys expected to get paid, obviously they should have said so. If the court were to allow this claim, it would be inviting other tenants to make improvements and then bill the landlord. The law has never been so foolish. Argument for the Chesneys: The law of quasi-contract was crafted for cases exactly like this. The Chesneys have given an enormous benefit to Stevens by transforming the apartment and enabling him to rent it at greater profit for many years to come. Stevens saw the work being done and understood that the Chesneys expected some compensation for these major renovations. If Stevens never intended to pay the fair value of the work, he should have stopped the couple from doing the work or notified them that there would be no compensation. It would be unjust to allow the landlord to seize the value of the work, evict the tenants who did it, and pay nothing.

Explanation / Answer

This case is a typical example of quasi-contract. Under the terms of Quasi-contract, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the amount which they have invested in the property. As the defendant already had some information about the work done by the plaintiff and that the benefits of these works are ultimately going to provide some benefits. Thus if the plain tiffs are not paid for the work done by them, it will be completely unjust with them. But if we look closely, the plaintiffs were at fault of not receiving any approval from the defendant before initiating the work on the property.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.