Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Martin v. Little, Brown & Co. | 450 A.2d 984 (1981)
An implied-in-fact contract is an agreement that’s implied from the facts and circumstances. If an implied-in-fact contract exists, an aggrieved party may recover the value of the goods or services provided under a theory of quantum meruit. In the 1981 case Martin versus Little, Brown and Company, the Pennsylvania Superior Court considered whether an implied-in-fact contract was created when one party voluntarily provided information to another party.
On September 28th, 1967, law student James Martin sent a letter to Little, Brown and Company advising that portions of the book How to Buy Stocks had been plagiarized by the authors of the book Planning Your Financial Future. In the letter, Martin offered to provide his copy of Planning Your Financial Future, in which he highlighted the plagiarized passages with references to the copied pages from How to Buy Stocks.
Roughly one month later, Little sent Martin a letter inviting him to send his copy of Planning Your Financial Future, which Martin did. After sending his copy of the book, Martin inquired about Little’s investigation but didn’t receive a response. Eventually, after learning that Little was pursuing a copyright-infringement claim, Martin demanded compensation for his services.
Following the demand, Little denied that it had a contract with Martin or that it was obligated to pay him for his work in bringing the copyright infringement to its attention. Nonetheless, Little sent Martin a check for two hundred dollars, which Martin retained but never cashed.
Subsequently, Martin sued Little in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for breach of contract, seeking one-third of what Little recovered in its copyright-infringement case. Specifically, Martin argued that an implied contract was formed based on the circumstances, and that he was entitled to payment. In response, Little filed a demurrer, or motion to dismiss, which the court of common pleas sustained. Martin then appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
