Langham v. Behnen
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00388-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-22-2010 Opinion Author: King, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Agency - Authority - Quantum-meruit recovery - Unjust enrichment Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Carlton, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J., dissents without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Directed Verdict Nature of the Case: CIVIL - CONTRACT |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-10-2009 Appealed from: Hancock County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: DIRECTED VERDICT ENTERED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE Case Number: 06-0114 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | James E. Langham |
PAUL ANDERSON KOERBER |
|
|
| Appellee: | Nicholas Behnen | TIMOTHY P. KOTTEMANN | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Agency - Authority - Quantum-meruit recovery - Unjust enrichment |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Langham filed suit against property owner Nicholas Behnen under theories of breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment after Langham did not receive payment for the cleaning and clearing of lots owned by Behnen, which were damaged by the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. The circuit court granted a directed verdict in favor of Behnen. Langham appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The circuit court found that Langham had failed to meet the burden of proof for the legal theories set forth in the complaint and, thus, granted Behnen’s motion for a directed verdict. Langham filed a complaint upon theories of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. The circuit judge stated that there was no proof of any kind that Culpepper, who coordinated the clearing of the lots, was an agent for Behnen; however, if there was any agency, Culpepper was Langham’s agent, not Behnen’s. The circuit judge stated that there was no evidence that Behnen ever acknowledged that he was responsible for the payment for the work done; in fact, Behnen ignored the bills sent to him. Langham argues that the oral contract was specifically stated and entered into by and between Langham and Behnen’s agent, Culpepper. Langham argues that Culpepper was an agent for Behnen, because the offer was communicated by Culpepper and Culpepper was authorized to accept the offer. Langham claims that Behnen’s statement “to go ahead” and the fact Behnen gave Culpepper his e-mail address in order to send him the bills for the work performed was authorization to have Langham clear and clean his eleven lots at a rate of $4,500 per lot. Under the law of agency, a principal is bound by the actions of its agent within the scope of that agent’s real or apparent authority. To establish apparent authority, one must prove acts or conduct on the part of the principal indicating the agent's authority, reasonable reliance on those acts, and a detrimental change in position as a result of such reliance. In this case, there is no indication that Culpepper had actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of Behnen. The record does not indicate Behnen gave Culpepper the authority to have Langham clear and clean his lots. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Culpepper informed Behnen of any details regarding the price per lot, the amount of time required to complete the removal, or the extent of work required to clean the lots. The record is void of any indication that Behnen reasonably relied on Culpepper to have the work done. Langham also argues that the clearing and cleanup of damaged and dangerous trees from the eleven lots owned by Behnen was incontrovertibly established by testimony at trial; thus, a jury question existed. Quantum-meruit recovery is a contract remedy which may be premised either on express or implied contract, and a prerequisite to establishing grounds for quantum meruit recovery is claimant’s reasonable expectation of compensation. An unjust-enrichment action is based on a promise, which is implied in law, that one will pay a person what he is entitled to according to equity and good conscience. Unjust enrichment only applies to situations where there is no legal contract and the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to another. In this case there was no legal contract, oral or written. The record does not indicate that Culpepper acted as an agent for Behnen, actual or apparent. Culpepper testified during her deposition she told Langham that Behnen seemed positive and felt that she had his permission to go ahead and see what was going to be needed for the lots. However, at trial when questioned as to her conversation with Behnen, Culpepper stated that Behnen told her to go ahead and look into it. Culpepper, interpreted that to mean that Langham could proceed with clearing and cleaning the lots. However, Behnen testified that he told Culpepper that he would look into it and get back with her, but he never did, and she never contacted him again. Behnen stated that he learned that work had been done only after Langham called him inquiring about payment. There is no indication that Langham acted in good faith in performing these services and charging a reasonable amount. Unjust enrichment is not applicable in this case because there is no indication that Behnen misled Langham and unjustly enriched himself at Langham’s expense. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
