1. PROMISSORY LIABILITY CREATING LIABILITY FOR PROMISE Mutual Assent Reliance Benefit Conferred + Promise Offer Acceptance Consideration Promissory Estoppel Restitution Benefit Conferred no Promise Promises w/I Family Charitable Subscriptions Promises w/i Commercial context Copyright©2004 Kenneth D. Ferguson

2. RESTITUTION 1. Restitution in the Absence of a Promise 1.Unjust Enrichment. The theory has many alternative names a.Quantum meruit: 1.Latin for "as much as he deserved," the actual value of services performed. 2.Quantum meruit determines the amount to be paid for services when no contract exists or when there is doubt as to the amount due for the work performed but done under circumstances when payment could be expected. 3.This may include a physician's emergency aid, legal work when there was no contract, or evaluating the amount due when outside forces cause a job to be terminated unexpectedly. If a person sues for payment for services in such circumstances the judge or jury will calculate the amount due based on time and usual rate of pay or the customary charge, based on quantum meruit by implying a contract existed.

3. RESTITUTION 1. Restitution in the Absence of a Promise 1.Unjust Enrichment. The theory has many alternative names b.Quasi-contract: 1.A situation in which there is an obligation as if there was a contract, although the technical requirements of a contract have not been met. c.Contract-implied-in-law 1.A situation in which there is an obligation as if there was a contract, although the technical requirements of a contract have not been fulfilled. d.QUANTUM VALEBAT 1.As much as it was worth. When goods are sold, without specifying any price, the law implies a promise from the buyer to the seller that he will pay him for them as much as they were worth

4. RESTITUTION 1. Restitution in the Absence of a Promise 2.All these terms refer to the following: 1.“When a party confers a benefit on another party and it would be unjust for the recipient to retain the benefit without paying for it, the law imposes an obligation on the recipient to pay or return the benefit.”. 2.Recovery “is based upon the universally recognized moral principle that one who has received a benefit has a duty to make restitution when to retain such benefit would be unjust. “ 3.Are there any limiting principles to the doctrine of unjust enrichment?

5. RESTITUTION 1. Restitution in the Absence of a Promise 3.Where one party has performed services at the request of another without discussion of compensation. a.These circumstances justify the inference of a promise to pay a reasonable amount for the services. b.The enforceability of this obligation turns on the implied promise, not on whether the defendant received something on value. c.The contract implied in fact can be enforced even where a defendant has received nothing of value. 4.Where, however, there is no enforceable express or implied in fact contract and where the defendant has received something of value, or has otherwise benefited from the service supplied, recovery under a quasi contractual theory may be appropriate.

6. RESTITUTION 1. Promissory Restitution 1.In the materials we cover today, a benefit is conferred and the recipient of such benefits, then promises to pay for the services rendered or the benefit conferred. a.What is the classical theorist’s response to such a claim? b.How has the courts avoided the problem of the lack of consideration in enforcing such promises. Mill v. Wyman 1.Moral Obligation is sufficient consideration to support an express promise, if there was some preexisting obligation, which has become inoperative by positive law, to form a basis for an effective promise. 2.Illustration of the case of a preexisting obligation include: a.Debts barred by the statute of limitation b.Debts incurred by infants c.Debts of bankrupts 3.How do courts justify enforcing these promises on the basis of the consideration doctrine? 4.How does Webb v. McGowin expand the moral obligation doctrine?