Preferred Contractors was a general contractor and owner of a condominium complex that was under construction. Barrett, a subcontractor, had been hired by Henderson Plumbing, another subcontractor, to help it complete the plumbing work on the project. When Henderson began using shoddy installation procedures and subsequently fell behind the scheduled completion time for the project, Preferred Contractors urged Barrett to correct Henderson's mistakes and to finish the job. Barrett refused to continue until he knew who would pay him, since he feared Henderson's financial position was shaky. Nonetheless, Preferred Contractors' job superintendent told Barrett to go ahead even if Barrett and Preferred Contractors had no contract because "he would use his influence to try to help Barrett get

Question

his money." Barrett finished the work and sent a $7,500 bill to Henderson, which was never paid. When Barrett later sent the bill to Preferred Contractors, these facts emerged: Preferred Contractors told him that due to Barrett's failure to notify Preferred Contractors promptly of Henderson's non-payment, Preferred Contractors had already paid Henderson in full and therefore would not pay twice for the work. Discuss the best possible theory of recovery Barrett may argue.

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Barrett's best theory for recovery is quasi-contract. Barrett will need to show three elements: 1) Barrett gave some benefit to Preferred Contractors. 2) Barrett reasonably expected to be paid for the benefit and Preferred Contractors knew this. 3) Barrett must show that he should receive the reasonable value of the services in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of Preferred Contractors. Barrett should argue that Preferred Contractors' business and financial well-being have been enhanced unjustly by his completion of the job.