Dozier and his wife, daughter, and grandson lived in the house Dozier owned. At the request of the daughter and grandson, Paschall made some improvements to the house. Dozier did not authorize these, but he knew that the improvements were being made and did not object to them. Paschall sued Dozier for the reasonable value of the improvements, but Dozier argued that he had not made any contract for such improvements. Was he obligated to pay for such improvements?

Question

Valentina Randall

Business

18 November, 03:13

Dozier and his wife, daughter, and grandson lived in the house Dozier owned. At the request of the daughter and grandson, Paschall made some improvements to the house. Dozier did not authorize these, but he knew that the improvements were being made and did not object to them. Paschall sued Dozier for the reasonable value of the improvements, but Dozier argued that he had not made any contract for such improvements. Was he obligated to pay for such improvements?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Memphis Ramsey · Answer 1

Answer: Yes

Explanation: In the above case, a quasi-contract was formed. This is when a bilateral contract is not in place but one party will enjoy the benefit of the activities of the other party and may be enriched by it.

A bilateral agreement is the exchange of a promise for another and in this case would have been, the promise that Dozier would pay for Paschall's work. This was not established, however, Dozier will benefit from Paschall's work unduly if he does not pay for the improvements. The law holds that he has to pay for Paschall's work to prevent being unjustly enriched.