QUASI CONTRACT: APPLYING PRECEDENT Seawest v. Copenhaver, NO. 65577-9-, (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012) FACTS The main facts are undisputed. The Copenhavers own Island County, Washington real property. Seawest maintains and operate a domestic water & distribution system. The Jim and Suzanne Copenhaver paid Seawest for water services and related assessments since 2001. However, after a dispute, the Copenhavers stopped paying for the water, claiming they did not have an express contract with Seawest. Seawest therefore sued the Copenhavers for the unpaid bills. The trial court granted summary judgment in Seawest's favor, and the Copenhavers appealed. LEGAL ANALYSIS The record supports a contract implied in law. The essential elements of unjust enrichment are "a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit, and the acceptance of retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without the payment of its value." In such situations, a "quasi contract" or "contract implied in law" exists between the parties All owners who held Seawest water shares are responsible for paying assessments. Undisputed evidence discussed above shows that the Copenhavers utilized the Seawest system and paid, without objection until litigation ensued, all water use, water maintenance, and assessment base charges to Seawest. The Copenhavers stopped all payments (including water charges) and claimed they were not Seawest limited members for the first time when this litigation ensued. The Copenhavers received quarterly water bills that show charges for water base." "water usage," and "assessment base." the Copenhavers would be unjustly enriched if they could retain benefits provided by Seawest without paying for them. The Copenhavers acquired property that carried with it a water share. We conclude the undisputed record supports a contract implied in law. The Copenhavers would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Seawest if they were allowed to retain the benefits of the water system without paying for it. Like in Lake Limerick, receiving services from an association without paying for them would be unjust. The record supports a contract implied in law 1. The issue in this case is whether the Copenhavers must pay their water bill. What reason did they have for not paying the bill? 2. The Rule used by the Court has several parts (called "elements). List them: 3. What was the Court's Conclusion - were the Copenhavers required to pay their bill? 1Page 4. Explain why the Copenhavers were required to pay their bill, Do this by applying the facts to each part of the rule 5. Precedent: You are now the Judge in the Crazy Cat caso below. Apply each part of the Rule from Seawest to the facts in that case and reach a Conclusion Explain your reasoning Crazy Cat Theodore & Franklin developed Crazy Cat, a caricature of a Calico Cat with a do-not- back-down" attitude. They promoted and marketed the character to KitDoodle, a popular supplier of cat food and cat products, Kipling, a marketing manager at KitDoodle, liked the idea, presented it to the CFO (along with financial terms) who rejected it. Meanwhile, the CFO approached its advertising agency with a "new idea" involving a Crazy Calico Cat. The company made the Cat the focus of its marketing but paid nothing to Theodore & Franklin. Theodore & Franklin sued KitDoodle for, among other things Breach of Implied Contract a) List the rules of Implied Contract b)Apply a fact (or more Il applicable) to each rule of Implied Contract c) What is your conclusion? Explain. Lake Limerick is a case whose Rule the court used in the Sewwest Case. This is an example of Precedent 21 MacBook Pro QUASI CONTRACT: APPLYING PRECEDENT Seawest v. Copenhaver, NO. 65577-9-, (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012) FACTS The main facts are undisputed. The Copenhavers own Island County, Washington real property. Seawest maintains and operate a domestic water & distribution system. The Jim and Suzanne Copenhaver paid Seawest for water services and related assessments since 2001. However, after a dispute, the Copenhavers stopped paying for the water, claiming they did not have an express contract with Seawest. Seawest therefore sued the Copenhavers for the unpaid bills. The trial court granted summary judgment in Seawest's favor, and the Copenhavers appealed. LEGAL ANALYSIS The record supports a contract implied in law. The essential elements of unjust enrichment are "a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit, and the acceptance of retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without the payment of its value." In such situations, a "quasi contract" or "contract implied in law" exists between the parties All owners who held Seawest water shares are responsible for paying assessments. Undisputed evidence discussed above shows that the Copenhavers utilized the Seawest system and paid, without objection until litigation ensued, all water use, water maintenance, and assessment base charges to Seawest. The Copenhavers stopped all payments (including water charges) and claimed they were not Seawest limited members for the first time when this litigation ensued. The Copenhavers received quarterly water bills that show charges for water base." "water usage," and "assessment base." the Copenhavers would be unjustly enriched if they could retain benefits provided by Seawest without paying for them. The Copenhavers acquired property that carried with it a water share. We conclude the undisputed record supports a contract implied in law. The Copenhavers would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Seawest if they were allowed to retain the benefits of the water system without paying for it. Like in Lake Limerick, receiving services from an association without paying for them would be unjust. The record supports a contract implied in law 1. The issue in this case is whether the Copenhavers must pay their water bill. What reason did they have for not paying the bill? 2. The Rule used by the Court has several parts (called "elements). List them: 3. What was the Court's Conclusion - were the Copenhavers required to pay their bill? 1Page 4. Explain why the Copenhavers were required to pay their bill, Do this by applying the facts to each part of the rule 5. Precedent: You are now the Judge in the Crazy Cat caso below. Apply each part of the Rule from Seawest to the facts in that case and reach a Conclusion Explain your reasoning Crazy Cat Theodore & Franklin developed Crazy Cat, a caricature of a Calico Cat with a do-not- back-down" attitude. They promoted and marketed the character to KitDoodle, a popular supplier of cat food and cat products, Kipling, a marketing manager at KitDoodle, liked the idea, presented it to the CFO (along with financial terms) who rejected it. Meanwhile, the CFO approached its advertising agency with a "new idea" involving a Crazy Calico Cat. The company made the Cat the focus of its marketing but paid nothing to Theodore & Franklin. Theodore & Franklin sued KitDoodle for, among other things Breach of Implied Contract a) List the rules of Implied Contract b)Apply a fact (or more Il applicable) to each rule of Implied Contract c) What is your conclusion? Explain. Lake Limerick is a case whose Rule the court used in the Sewwest Case. This is an example of Precedent 21 MacBook Pro