Opinion
No. 82-235
Opinion Filed January 27, 1984
1. Contracts — Implied Contracts — Receipt of Benefits
The law implies a promise to pay when a party receives a benefit and the retention of the benefit would be inequitable.
2. Contracts — Implied Contracts — Receipt of Benefits
Where plaintiff performed electrical work at the house where defendants resided and defendants did not dispute the quality of the work or the reasonableness of the charges and raised as their sole defense the fact that they had not ordered the work, since defendant who owned the house received a benefit from the work that was done and this benefit was retained by her, plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the owner for the outstanding balance of its bill, but since no contract existed between plaintiff and the other defendant, and she had not received and retained any benefit, judgment in her favor would be affirmed.
Action to recover for electrical work performed. District Court, Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit, Morwood, Acting J., presiding. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
James H. Wick and L. Randolph Amis, III, of James H. Wick Law Offices, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Donna J. and Marilyn Shea, pro se, Colchester, Defendants-Appellees.
Present: Billings, C.J., Hill, Underwood, Peck and Gibson, JJ.
Plaintiff Cedric Electric, Inc., performed certain electrical work at defendant Donna Shea's home, where both defendants reside. When the work was completed, plaintiff submitted a bill for $116.72; subsequently, defendant Marilyn Shea, Donna's mother, made a partial payment of $10.00. Although defendants contend that they did not order the work to be done, they acknowledge that it was done, and do not dispute the quality of the work, the reasonableness of the charges, the fact that a benefit was received, or even that, sooner or later, the work needed to be done. Their sole defense is that they did not order it. Following hearing, the court below awarded judgment to the defendants.
The law implies a promise to pay when a party receives a benefit and the retention of the benefit would be inequitable. Eddy v. Watson, 141 Vt. 577, 579, 450 A.2d 1140, 1141 (1982). Such is clearly the case here. The owner of the house, Donna Shea, has received a benefit in the form of the electrical work that was done, and this benefit has been retained by her. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Donna Shea for the outstanding balance of its bill.
The evidence does not reveal the existence of any contract between plaintiff and defendant Marilyn Shea or that any benefit has been received and retained by her. Accordingly, the judgment in favor of Marilyn Shea must be affirmed.
The judgment in favor of defendant Donna Shea is reversed; judgment entered for the plaintiff to recover of defendant Donna Shea the sum of $106.72, plus interest to be calculated by the trial court, plus costs in each court. Judgment for defendant Marilyn Shea affirmed.