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.

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

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

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

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