Bastian v. Gafford

98 Idaho 324, 563 P.2d 48 (1977)

Facts

D asked P if he would be interested in constructing an office building upon a parcel of D's real property located in Twin Falls, Idaho. P orally agreed to construct the building and began drafting the plans. After the plans were substantially completed, D contacted First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Twin Falls to seek financing for the building. He was informed that First Federal required a firm bid by a contractor and would not finance the project on a cost-plus basis. D told P of the need for a firm bid, but P refused to submit one stating that he would only construct the building on a cost-plus basis. D thereafter hired an architect to prepare a second set of plans and employed another contractor to construct the building using those plans. On June 29, 1972, P filed a materialmen's lien upon D's real property in the amount of $3,250 for goods and services rendered in preparing the plans. He then commenced this action to foreclose that lien, alleging an implied-in-fact contract to compensate him for his services. After a trial on the merits, however, the court entered judgment for D on the ground that D had not been unjustly enriched. Since he did not use P's plans in constructing the office building, D received no benefit from them and was therefore not required to compensate appellant for drafting them.