Bastian v. Gafford

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

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

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.