Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D directed P to tow, pick-up, recover, impound and store allegedly stolen vehicles and vehicle parts. These vehicles and vehicle parts included four forty-foot trailers, a Peterbilt Tractor/Sleeper Cab and various truck parts, including a Marmon Detroit diesel engine, a Marmon rear axle tandem assembly, a Mack transmission, and Mack carrier axles. D directed P to impound the items and, despite repeated inquiries from P, D did not release the items for return to owners or for sale. P sent a statement to the D seeking $67,204 as reimbursement for their towing and storage. For several months thereafter, P sent statements to D each month, adding $2,250 for monthly storage charges to the past due balance. P filed its complaint against D for $78,454. Two sheriff's sales were held. P received $14,500, of the over $78,000 it claimed. In June of 1993, after a hearing, the Board of Claims found that D had no liability for payment of the remaining towing and storage fees because no contractual relationship existed between P and D. P appealed claiming that D is liable for the towing and storage charges on theories of implied-in-fact or quasi-contract.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.