Brady v. Alaska

965 P.2d 1 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A northern spruce bark beetle epidemic is killing vast numbers of trees in south-central Alaska. D formed a Forest Health Initiative, directed by Daniel Golden. In April 1993 Golden suggested to P that he apply to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Forestry (Forestry), for a negotiated timber sale. P could then conduct a model timber-salvage project to demonstrate his belief that harvesting and reforestation can fight the epidemic. P twice unsuccessfully applied for a sale in a 200-acre area near Moose Pass. Jim Peterson rejected his applications. Peterson noted that a forestry regulation barred a sale until DNR's Division of Lands (DOL) had classified the land. P offered to help DNR prepare a site-specific Forest Land-Use Plan (FLUP) for the area by gathering data 'for the 200 acres.' P and other timber-sale applicants met with State Forester Tom Boutin. He agreed to 'entertain' six applications for negotiated sales. P again offered to gather data for a FLUP. The State accepted this offer in a July 21 letter from Peterson: We would like to take you up on your offer to help prepare the site-specific plan as required [by] AS 38.05.112. You indicated your willingness to do the research, compile and report the required data[,] and submit this information to us. Due to our present workload, this assistance would help expedite the sale. D had also requested $3,000 'as a presale deposit.' Peterson wrote that Forestry was working with DOL and hoped to finish classifying the area 'expeditiously.' 'In the meantime,' he concluded, 'we will begin preparation of a sale in the area requested upon receipt of the presale deposit. We look forward to working with you on successful completion of this proposal.' Terry sent the $3,000, deeming it a 'down payment.' P also submitted two draft FLUPs in September. On October 4 the public met to discuss forest issues and a close business associate of P, said, 'As far as we're concerned he's [Boutin's] made a contract with us.' Boutin did not reply; he has affied that he did not hear the comment. A week later Peterson toured the proposed sale area with P and other applicants and said that Forestry had sent DOL 'a copy of the Forest Land Use Plan. It's the best site-specific [data] that we have.' Peterson also said, in response to a question about timing: 'We can be prepared to sign . . . make that contract . . . sign that contract . . . on the day they [DOL] sign the classification order.' On October 20 P submitted his final report and an invoice for professional services for $ 26,250. Peterson declined to pay, writing that, 'in all our discussions with you, never at any time was there an indication of our entering into a professional-services contract with you.' DOL used P's work in preparing a draft FLUP in October. The DOL employee who wrote the plans affied 'that no time or money savings resulted [from the use].' D rejected the invoice and rejected a negotiated timber sale. P sued for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The court granted D summary judgment. P appealed.