Case No. A00A1531
Popular in Legal Environment Of Business
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Department
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Varsha Mandiga on Thursday March 10, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to BUSA 2106 at Georgia State University taught by Grelecki in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 27 views.
Reviews for Case No. A00A1531
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/10/16
Varsha Mandiga COCHRAN. et al. v. OGLETREE FACTS Case No. A00A1531 When: June 21 , 2000. Where: Court of Appeals of Georgia. Who: Appellant – Richard D.C. Schrade, Jr., Stockbridge. Appellees – William C. Drosky, Jonesbro. ELDRIDGE, Judge. What: Pamela Ogletree sued Billy Cochran and Gregory D. Reed d/b/a Cochran & Reed on two purported construction contracts that were never performed to recover $55,000 deposited on Contract I and $20,000 deposited on Contract II; the defendants answered and countersued for their losses under Contract I. ISSUE(S) After a bench trial, the trial court found that plaintiff breached Contract I; the defendants had damages of $18,003.07 resulting from their good faith part performance of Contract I; the defendants owed plaintiff a refund of $31,996.93 of unearned funds deposited by the plaintiff on Contract I; and that on Contract II neither party was at fault because of the impossibility of performance, but defendants in good faith incurred $4,700 in expenses and had to refund $15,300 of the deposited funds of $20,000 to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed the judgment contending that plaintiff was not entitled to any refund under Contract I, because the money was paid voluntarily and that the defendants had no duty to prove their damages. Ogletree did not agree and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. RULE(S) OCGA § 927. Implied promise to pay for services or property. OCGA § 3113. Recovery of voluntary payments. ANAYLSIS The application of all the rules of contract construction and parol evidence would not provide detailed plans, drawings, and specifications necessary to calculate the cost that plaintiff would owe and defendants were obligated to build. Therefore, the purported contract lacked a definite contract subject, i.e., the drawings and design of the daycare center. No binding contract ever came into existence. Thus, this action was miscast and misconstrued by all parties as a breach of contract action, when it was an action for money had and received or unjust enrichment with a counterclaim for quantum meruit. o Here, neither party was bound by an enforceable contract. The theory of unjust enrichment applies when there is no legal contract and when there has been a benefit conferred which would result in an unjust enrichment unless compensated. Since both parties labored under a mutual mistake of fact that there was a valid contract and since plaintiff made the deposit with the defendants in belief that such was required under the contract, then OCGA § 13113 has no application, because the money was not due and payable under a void contract. CONCLUSION The plaintiff is not barred from recovering such funds, even if the plaintiff was negligent, when the trier of fact determines that the money should be returned; the trial court found that there should be a partial return of the money deposited. The trial court certainly weighed the equities and awarded the defendants all damages shown by the evidence. Judgment affirmed. 2
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'