CASE LAWS 4
In Washington, Pilchuck Mechanical Inc. v.Lydig Construction Inc. case is about excavation work on Boeingproject (Epstein,Markell,Ponoroff &Epstein, 2011). According to theplaintiff, the job was not as described in the bid. Therefore,Pilchuck considered this a breach of an implied-in-law duty. Theplaintiff claimed that they deserved to recover under the quantummeruit.
In Oregon, John P. Jaqua v. Nike Inc. case isabout the appellant demanding proper compensation for his idea usedin the company. The motion was to dismiss these claims after theplaintiff filed a case in January 1992 (Epstein,Markell,Ponoroff &Epstein, 2011). He gave an idea aboutmaking shoes to the company. While he was not hired to developproducts, he shared his idea of enhancing the product and was nevercompensated after the defendant used it in the company.
In California, Elizabeth S. Davis v. NormanKrasna case was about breach of confidence. The plaintiff shared herstory with the respondenton a confidentialbasis, but the defendant betrayedher (Epstein,Markell,Ponoroff &Epstein, 2011). The defendant haddisclosed the story to entertainment sources without consent. Theactual cause for this case was to dismiss this allegation onthe grounds of statute oflimitation.
In Idaho, Beco Const. v. Bannock Paving suit isabout awarding the bidto Bannock Paving,yet it had not qualified as a small business (Epstein,Markell,Ponoroff &Epstein, 2011). However, it had a lowerbid than the defendant. According to the court’s ruling, there wasno unjust enrichment. The court required for recovery of unfairenrichment that the defendant would benefit unjustly [tautology] atthe cost of the plaintiff. In all states, the recovery ofquasi-contract depends on the nature of the requested relief. If theclaim is seeking monetary compensation fordamages, it has a right to a jury hearing.
Epstein, D. G., Markell, B. A., Ponoroff, L., &Epstein, D. G. (2011). Cases andMaterialson Contracts:Making and doing deals. St. Paul,MN: Thomson/West.