Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P and Larson entered into an oral contract whereby P agreed to remove rock from Larson's farmland in exchange for P receiving the value of the rock removed. Shortly after P began removing rock from Larson's land, the two entered into a second oral agreement. In exchange for P's right to keep the excavated rock extracted from Larson's land, P agreed to install drain tile in a low-lying area of Larson's farmland. P removed rock from Larson's land. He also installed drain tile. P claimed that he extracted approximately 1,100 tons of rock. P removed between three to five semi-truck loads from Larson's land. The rest was stored for removal at a later date. D learned that Larson had rock on his land that he wanted removed. D contacted Larson. Larson told D of the deal with P. Larson also told Penny that he would contact P to ask whether P intended on removing the stockpiled rock. P did not contact Larson, and eventually, Larson gave D permission to remove the rock. D paid nothing for the rock. P learned that his rock piles were no longer on Larson's land. P invoiced Larson on October 24, 2006, for his services in excavating and removing the rock. P also included an invoice for the installation of the drain tile. Larson neither responded to the letter nor paid the invoice. P sued Larson for breach of contract, conversion, restitution, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment. He amended his complaint to include D. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Larson and D. A hearing was held to consider P's equitable claims. The court concluded that Larson and D were unjustly enriched by the labor, equipment, and materials provided by P for the removal of the rock. Ds appealed. Ds claim that because the jury rendered a verdict against P on his breach of contract and conversion claims, the court erred in allowing unjust enrichment damages on the same facts.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co