This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Britton v. Turner: Difference between revisions
(Contracts/Quantum meruit) |
No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
|source_type=Video summary | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |case_text_source=Quimbee | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/britton-v-turner-39016782 | |||
|source_type=Case brief | |||
|case_text_source=LSD | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|+ | |||
! colspan="5" |Contract litigation | |||
|- | |||
| colspan="2" |Breach of contract | |||
| colspan="3" |Quantum meruit | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| rowspan="2" |Implied contract | |||
| rowspan="2" |Quasi-contract | |||
| rowspan="2" |Unjust enrichment | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|} |
Latest revision as of 19:34, July 14, 2023
Britton v. Turner | |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
---|---|
Citation | 6 N.H. 481 (1834) |
Date decided | July 1, 1834 |
Appealed from | Court of Common Pleas (New Hampshire) |
Facts
Plaintiff (Mr. Britton) was hired to work for the defendant (Mr. Turner) for 1 year, and at the end of that year, he would receive his yearly wages of $120 (roughly $44,000 in 2023) from March 1831 to March 1832.
After about 9 1/2 months, Britton left the employment in December 1831. Turner refused to pay Britton for the work that Britton completed in the 9 1/2 months.Procedural History
Britton sued Turner for $100.
Jury was instructed that Plaintiff (Britton) should receive the value of the labor that he performed.
Jury returned verdict of $95. Defendant appealed, excepting to the jury instructions.Issues
Holding
Plaintiff (Britton) should receive the amount commensurate to the work performed.
Britton can't recover damages, but he can recover in quantum meruit for the value of his services.Judgment
Reasons
If Defendant (Turner) did not have to pay anything to Plaintiff (Britton), then other employers would have motivation to try to drive their employees away after substantial work is finished but before it is completed.
Also, employees would have incentive to quit without starting because they would know that any work completed, short of fully performing the contract, would go uncompensated.Rule
Case Text Links
Contract litigation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Breach of contract | Quantum meruit | |||
Implied contract | Quasi-contract | Unjust enrichment | ||