New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Case No. A00A1531

by: Varsha Mandiga

Case No. A00A1531 BUSA 2106

Varsha Mandiga
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Case Briefs
Legal Environment Of Business
Class Notes
BUSA, 2106, GSU, Ryan
25 ?




Popular in Legal Environment Of Business

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


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.