 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Slick v. Reinecker12/23/2003
HEADNOTE
SUIT FOR PAYMENT FOR RENDERING OF LEGAL SERVICES - A CONTRACT IMPLIED IN LAW, BUT NO CONTRACT IMPLIED IN FACT - A CONTRACT IMPLIED IN FACT - A CONTRACT IMPLIED IN LAW - THE EVIDENTIARY BACKGROUND - FROM JULY 30, 1999 THROUGH LATE JULY OR EARLY AUGUST, 2000 - A CHANGED INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP - THE TRIAL COURT'S RULINGS - COMPUTING THE DAMAGES - THE MEASURE OF THE RECOVERY FOR AN IMPLIED-IN-LAW CONTRACT - THE MEASURABLE GAIN MUST HAVE BEEN POST-AUGUST 1, 2000 - INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF GAIN TO SLICK - THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEGOTIATION - THE CHALLENGE TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY IN A NON-JURY CASE
Opinion
The appellee, Mary Beth Reinecker, Esq., sued the appellant, Daniel Slick, in the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County for breach of contract. The case was tried by the judge, sitting without a jury. The alleged contract was one involving the legal representation of the appellant by the appellee in a motor vehicle tort case.
A Contract Implied in Law, But No Contract Implied in Fact
There was no written contract between the parties. The appellee attempted to prove that there was a contract implied in fact. The court found that there was not. It did find in the alternative, however, that there was a contract implied in law. On the basis of it, it made an award of $13,000 to the appellee. This appeal is from that award.
The evidence fully supports the court's findings that 1) there was between Daniel Slick and Mary Beth Reinecker no contract for professional legal services, either express or implied in fact; but 2) there was between them an exchange of services that amounted to a contract implied in law.
A Contract Implied In Fact
The two terms, although they resemble each other linguistically in that each contains the word "contract," are diametrically different in terms of the legal relationships they denote. A contract implied in fact is actually a contract. As Judge Salmon explained for this Court in Mogavero v. Silverstein, 142 Md. App. 259, 275, 790 A.2d 43 (2002):
An implied-in-fact contract is a "true contract" and "means that the parties had a contract that can be seen in their conduct rather than in an explicit set of words." Implied-in-fact contracts are "dependent on mutual agreement or consent, and on the intention of the parties; and a meeting of the minds is required."
In Mogavero v. Silverstein, 142 Md. App. at 277, we quoted with approval from Eaton v. Engelcke Manufacturing, Inc., 37 Wash. App. 677, 681 P.2d 1312, 1314 (1984):
A true implied contract, or contract implied in fact, does not describe a legal relationship which differs from an express contract: only the mode of proof is different.
(Emphasis supplied).
Vol. 1, Williston on Contracts, ยง 1.5, pp. 20-21, by Richard A. Lord (1990), also described an implied-in-fact contract.
The term implied or inferred contract, also sometimes called an implied in fact contract, refers to that class of obligations which arises from mutual agreement and intent to promise, when the agreement and promise have simply not been expressed in words. Despite the fact that no words of promise or agreement have been used, such transactions are nevertheless true contracts, and may properly be called inferred contracts or contracts implied in fact.
(Emphasis supplied).
In Mass Transit Administration v. Granite Construction Co., 57 Md. App. 766, 774, 471 A.2d 1121 (1984), Judge Bloom defined the term.
The term [implied in fact contract] only means that the parties had a contract that can be seen in their conduct rather than in an expli
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|