Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti

30 Citing cases

  1. Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes Corp.

    91 N.J. Super. 105 (App. Div. 1966)   Cited 198 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “quasi-contract cases involve either some direct relationship between the parties or a mistake on the part of the person conferring the benefit” and therefore “ plaintiff is not entitled to employ the legal fiction of quasi-contract to substitute one promisor or debtor for another.”

    However, a common thread runs throughout its application where liability has been successfully asserted, namely, that the plaintiff expected remuneration from the defendant, or if the true facts were known to plaintiff, he would have expected remuneration from defendant, at the time the benefit was conferred. See Rabinowitz v. Mass. Bonding Insurance Co., 119 N.J.L. 552 ( E. A. 1937); Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294 ( App. Div. 1963); Shapiro v. Solomon, 42 N.J. Super. 377 ( App. Div. 1956).

  2. Bailey v. West

    105 R.I. 61 (R.I. 1969)   Cited 51 times
    Holding "that there never existed between the parties an element essential to the formulation of any true contract, namely, an `intent to contract'"

    Therefore, essential elements of contracts "implied in fact" are mutual agreement, and intent to promise, but the agreement and the promise have not been made in words and are implied from the facts. Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 191 A.2d 483 (1963); St. Paul Fire M. Ins. Co. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of No. America, 32 N.J. 17, 158 A.2d 825 (1960); St. John's First Lutheran Church v. Storsteen, 77 S.D. 33, 84 N.W.2d 725 (1957). Compare Arden Engineering Co. v. E. Turgeon Constr. Co., 97 R.I. 342, 347, 197 A.2d 743, 746, and George Spalt Sons, Inc. v. Maiello, 48 R.I. 223, 226, 136 A. 882, 883.

  3. Sicula Oceanica v. Wilmar Marine Eng. Sales

    413 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 28 times
    In Sicula Oceanica, the Fifth Circuit applied to a maritime contract the general principle of contract law that a supervening discovery of facts that makes the promised performance more difficult, or the occurrence of subsequent events having this effect, if they are such as to be commonly foreseeable and in contemplation, usually does not discharge the contractor from his duty.

    Restatement, Contracts § 357(f). See also 5 Williston on Contracts § 1475, notes 2, 5 (Rev.Ed.); Dermott v. Jones, 23 How. 220, 64 U.S. 220, 233, 16 L.Ed. 442; American Surety Co. of New York v. United States, 9 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 475; Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 1963, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 191 A.2d 483. Here Siosa suffered damages but benefitted from Wilmar's partial performance of the contract. In these circumstances the equities require that the damages should be off-set against the value of the benefit to Siosa.

  4. Nordin Construction Co. v. City of Nome

    489 P.2d 455 (Alaska 1971)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that party seeking recovery upon unjust enrichment theory must prove "the value to the [recipient] of the performance tendered"

    In order to overturn the verdict of the jury in this case, we must say that there is no evidence upon which reasonable minds might differ in finding that the failure of performance on behalf of the plaintiff was substantial. See Little Thompson Water Ass'n v. Strawn, 466 P.2d 915, 917 (Colo. 1970); Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 191 A.2d 483, 488 (App.Div. 1963). Nordin advances the position that the evidence of failure to substantially perform was inherently unbelievable, and that "it is a hopeless and formidable task to go to the record and argue against the vague testimony of the hometowners and nonengineers" who testified with regard to deficiencies in the system.

  5. Selective Builders v. Hudson City Savings Bank

    137 N.J. Super. 500 (Ch. Div. 1975)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that a party's failure to object when a condition was not satisfied and the party's conduct constituted a waiver of such condition

    In St. Paul Chase Corp. v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 262 Md. 192, 278 A.2d 12 (Ct.App. 1971), the court was confronted with substantially the same issue in a similar factual setting as presented here, and referring to the mortgage loan commitment commented as follows: See Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294 (App.Div. 1963); Jardine Estates v. Donna Brook Corp., 42 N.J. Super. 332 (App.Div. 1956). Also, 13 Am. Jur.2d, Building and Construction Contracts, § 43; 76 A.L.R.2d 815, § 5.

  6. State v. Moore

    147 N.J. Super. 47 (App. Div. 1977)   Cited 11 times
    Emphasizing the need to explore alternatives to proof sanctions

    Statev. Metalski, 116 N.J.L. 543, 546 (E. A. 1936); Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 301 (App.Div. 196 3). We do not regard the statement of the witness as being contemptuous in any sense.

  7. Kozlowski v. Kozlowski

    164 N.J. Super. 162 (Ch. Div. 1978)   Cited 31 times
    Holding that the woman had an employment relationship with her boyfriend because he said "he would take care of her and provide for her if she would only come back and resume her functions in the household as she had performed them in the past"

    The acceptance of valuable services performed under circumstances justifying the conclusion that it would be inequitable to allow the recipient to enjoy the benefit without compensation therefore supports relief by way of quantum meruit, quasi-contract, constructive trust or implied contract, as may be appropriate if no express contract exists. Our rules permit the employment within the pleadings of any or, in the alternative, all of these theories of relief. R. 4:5-6 and R. 4:5-7; see also, Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 304 (App.Div. 1963). Defendant opposes all such theories of relief by contending that the cause of action itself contravenes New Jersey's "Heart Balm" Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:23-1 et seq., which specifically bars any suit based upon a breach of promise to marry.

  8. Van Orman v. American Ins. Co.

    680 F.2d 301 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that "recovery under unjust enrichment may not be had when a valid, unrescinded contract governs the rights of the parties"

    The court relied on a passage from a decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division stating that " quasi-contractual obligations arise independently of the parties' intent or the existence of a contract." Power-Matics Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 306, 191 A.2d 483 (App. Div. 196 3). We believe the district court's reliance on this statement was misplaced and that New Jersey law is to the contrary: recovery under unjust enrichment may not be had when a valid, unrescinded contract governs the rights of the parties.

  9. Suburban Transfer Serv. v. Beech Holdings, Inc.

    716 F.2d 220 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 100 times
    Finding that, under New Jersey law, constructive or quasi-contractual remedy "to prevent unjust enrichment or unconscionable benefit ... will not be imposed ... if an express contract exists concerning the identical subject matter."

    The parties are bound by their agreement, and there is no ground for implying a promise as long as a valid unrescinded contract governs the rights of the parties. Van Orman v. American Insurance Co., 680 F.2d 301, 310-11 (3d Cir. 1982); C.B. Snyder Realty Co. v. National Newark Essex Banking Co., 14 N.J. 146, 162-63, 101 A.2d 544, 553 (1953); Moser v. Milner Hotels, Inc., 6 N.J. 278, 280, 78 A.2d 393, 394 (1951). But see Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 306, 191 A.2d 483, 490 (1963). Under those principles Transfer's claim for quasi-contractual liability based on unjust enrichment must fail as a matter of law.

  10. Insulation Contracting Supply v. Kravco, Inc.

    209 N.J. Super. 367 (App. Div. 1986)   Cited 40 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding sub-sub-contractors working on a construction project could not recover from a general contractor which "terminate[d] one of its subcontractors for non-performance"

    In fact, the obligations are sometimes imposed even against clear expressions of dissent. Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294 (App.Div. 1963). Restitution and unjust enrichment are both quasi-contractual in nature.