Implied In Fact Contract

227 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• DNA Sports Performance LAB, Inc. v. Club Atlantis Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  219 So. 3d 107· Fla. 3d DCA· 2017-04-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice was an abuse of discretion as to counts one and three, because those counts could be amended to state valid causes of action.
• City OF EL Centro v. The United States
  922 F.2d 816· Fed. Cir.· 1990-12-28 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the Claims Court's decision that the INS should pay for the hospitalization of indigent, illegal aliens.
• Laplant v. United States & its Dep't of Agric.
  872 F.2d 881· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-13 ·cited 6×
  A claim seeking to imply a 'good faith' term into a government contract by operation of state law must be deemed contractual in nature and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Court under the Tucker Act.
• Yachts Am., Inc. v. The United States
  779 F.2d 656· Fed. Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Claims Court's denial of Yachts America's claims for compensation, finding no error in the prior decisions regarding ownership, business taking, leasehold taking, implied contract, inverse condemnation, or the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.
• Caffall Bros. Forest Prods., Inc. v. The United States
  678 F.2d 1071· Ct. Cl.· 1982-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the estimated timber volume in the contract did not constitute a warranty, and the plaintiff assumed the risk of a volume shortfall.
• Transcountry Packing Co., Inc. v. The United States
  568 F.2d 1333· Ct. Cl.· 1978-01-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims sounded in tort and therefore fell outside the court's limited jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, which does not permit jurisdiction over tort claims.
• Loral Corp. v. The United States
  434 F.2d 1328· Ct. Cl.· 1970-12-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that plaintiff could not recover rental expenses under fixed-price contracts because the factual differences from prior litigation involving cost-plus contracts, and plaintiff's failure to preserve objections, precluded recovery.
• Crosby v. Paul Hardeman, Inc.
  414 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1969-07-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the claims against the original contractor and its surety were separate and independent from the claims against the subsequent parties, allowing for removal to federal court. The court also held that no contract, express or implied, or estoppel existed between
• Jack D. GAY for S'holders of Nw. Uranium Mines, Inc. v. The United States
  356 F.2d 516· Ct. Cl.· 1966-02-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a contract, either unilateral or bilateral, with the Atomic Energy Commission for the purchase of uranium ore or concentrate.
• Dubin v. United States
  289 F.2d 651· Ct. Cl.· 1961-05-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that if the seized property related to national defense, the plaintiff's possession was unlawful under the Espionage Act, and he is not entitled to compensation for the taking, though he may be entitled to a refund of his expenditures.
• United States v. Willis
  164 F.2d 453· 4th Cir.· 1947-11-10 ·cited 6×
  The United States cannot be held liable for expenses incurred by a vessel owner maintaining a crew after a contract termination, absent express authority from a government official.
• Tabraue v. Doctors Hosp., Inc.
  272 So. 3d 468· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-03-27 ·cited 5×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim brought by the estate of a patient who died after emergency room and intensive care treatment, holding that a hospital does not owe a non-delegable duty to provide non-negl
• Doug Hambel's Plumbing, Inc. v. Miles V. Conway
  831 So. 2d 704· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-10-30 ·cited 4×
  A subcontractor who performed plumbing work without a written contract sued the homeowner for damages and to foreclose a mechanic's lien. The trial court awarded damages based on a contract implied in law but denied the lien, reasoning that a quantum meruit count did not allege a
• Portman v. Cnty. OF Santa Clara
  995 F.2d 898· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the public defender lacked standing to assert his clients' Sixth Amendment rights because those claims were not ripe, and he had no constitutionally protected property interest in his job as an at-will employee.
• Schneider v. TRW, Inc.
  938 F.2d 986· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 4×
  Summary judgment for the employer is affirmed because the employee failed to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding her claims, including that her layoff was due to a legitimate reduction in force and not discriminatory reasons.
• W.R. Cooper Gen. Contractor, Inc. v. The United States
  843 F.2d 1362· Fed. Cir.· 1988-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The Claims Court erred in dismissing Cooper's complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the facts alleged could support a Tucker Act claim based on an implied contract.
• Nat'l Small Shipments Traffic Conf., Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  725 F.2d 1442· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's (ICC) new regulations allowing motor carriers to allocate higher platform handling costs to smaller shipments were valid, affirming the ICC's decision.
• Helash v. Ballard
  638 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that no implied in fact contract existed because Helash provided no consideration, and the government's use of steel did not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking as Helash had no property interest in it.
• Hatzlachh Supply Co., Inc. v. The United States
  579 F.2d 617· Ct. Cl.· 1978-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract for the return of seized goods is barred by the explicit statutory exclusion of claims arising from customs detentions under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• The Narva Harris Constr. Corp. v. The United States
  574 F.2d 508· Ct. Cl.· 1978-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that 31 U.S.C. § 200 does not automatically preclude recovery on an implied-in-fact contract, even if based on the same facts as an express oral contract. A trial is necessary to determine if such facts exist.
• United States Steel Corp. v. The United States
  536 F.2d 921· Ct. Cl.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Department of Labor did not breach the contract and that claims for costs outside the express contract terms could not be recovered on a quantum meruit or quasi-contract basis due to lack of jurisdiction and the existence of an express contract.
• Itt Fed. Support Servs., Inc. v. The United States
  531 F.2d 522· Ct. Cl.· 1976-03-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that surplus moneys in a government contractor's pension fund, including post-termination earnings and profits, belong to the Government under the terms of the cost-plus contract and equitable considerations. The court also denied the contractor's claim for quantum
• Rashap v. Brownell
  250 F.2d 794· 2d Cir.· 1957-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff could not recover directly from Aramo for services rendered to Oak, as Aramo's contractual obligation was to Oak, not the plaintiff individually.
• SBP Homes, LLC v. 84 Lumber Co.
  384 So. 3d 241· Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-02-21 ·cited 3×
  A credit agreement between parties does not bar a claim for breach of contract implied in fact where the implied contract concerns a different subject matter (a specific construction project) than the express credit agreement, and does not bar a negligence claim based on duties s
• McMILLAN v. Shively
  23 So. 3d 830· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-12-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the trial court erred by failing to consider the argument that a subsequent implied in fact contract arose after the original breach.
• GEM Broad., Inc. v. Minker
  763 So. 2d 1149· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-01-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that competent, substantial evidence supported the damage award for consulting services under a contract implied in fact, and a benefit to the defendant was not a necessary element for recovery on such a contract.
• Johan F. Hagstrom v. Co.fe.me. USA Marine Exhaust, LLC
  322 So. 3d 145· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-05-26 ·cited 2×
  A dissolved LLC is bound by and may enforce an operating agreement regardless of whether it signed the agreement, and where parties continue to perform under an expired employment contract, an implied renewal incorporating the same terms arises, making both arbitration clauses va
• Shelowitz, Shelowitz, Terrell & Coffey, P.A. v. Hortense Peters
  931 So. 2d 1059· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-07-05 ·cited 2×
• Waite Dev., Inc. v. City OF Milton
  866 So. 2d 153· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-02-19 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the breach of contract claim, finding that the petition for annexation and the subsequent ordinance could constitute an express written contract.
• Waterfront Props., Inc. v. Coast TO Coast Real Est., Inc.
  679 So. 2d 48· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-08-28 ·cited 2×
• Winstar Corp. v. The United States
  994 F.2d 797· Fed. Cir.· 1993-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The government is liable for the financial consequences of abrogating contracts with thrift institutions, as the sovereign acts doctrine does not shield it from liability for specific contractual breaches.
• In re de Laurentiis Ent. Grp. Inc. v. Nat'l Broad. Co.
  963 F.2d 1269· 9th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the right to setoff under 11 U.S.C. § 553 takes precedence over the discharge provisions of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan under 11 U.S.C. § 1141, and that quantum meruit recovery is permissible even without an expectation of payment from the defendant.
• Fareed M. Farha v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  963 F.2d 283· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-23 ·cited 2×
  A claim for money damages under Oklahoma's replevin statute must be based on contract or tort, and claims against the FDIC are subject to specific jurisdictional limitations and administrative claim requirements.
• Lariscey v. The United States
  949 F.2d 1137· Fed. Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an inmate possessed a protectable property right in his invention, which was taken for governmental purposes, entitling him to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, and that the government did not have a shop right to use the invention without payment.
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. The United States
  909 F.2d 495· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's release of retainage was not a material departure from the construction contract and did not prejudice the surety, thus the surety was not discharged from its obligations under the performance bond.
• Ransom v. The United States
  900 F.2d 242· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that no express or implied-in-fact contract arose between the government and the surety, thus the government owed no contractual duties that could have been breached.
• Grav v. The United States
  886 F.2d 1305· Fed. Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 2×
  The statute establishing the milk diversion program is not money-mandating, and therefore the Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over claims arising from it.
• NEW Am. Shipbuilders, Inc. v. The United States
  871 F.2d 1077· Fed. Cir.· 1989-04-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unauthorized approval by an SBA official, even if believed to be authorized, does not bind the government to an implied-in-fact contract or by estoppel, and that NASI failed to demonstrate the need for further discovery.
• Bernard v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
  869 F.2d 928· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an express at-will employment contract cannot be modified by an employee handbook absent clear intent to do so, and that plaintiffs failed to establish claims for fraud or promissory estoppel.
• Lariscey v. The United States
  861 F.2d 1267· Fed. Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a request for court-appointed counsel in a civil action is not immediately appealable, and the Claims Court lacks the statutory authority to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
• Bernstein v. AETNA Life & Cas.
  843 F.2d 359· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against Fischer for discrimination were not barred by failure to name him in the administrative charge, that Arizona Supreme Court decisions on at-will employment apply retroactively, and that the ACRA does not preempt common law wrongfu
• Rockwood Mfg. Corp. v. AMP, Inc.
  806 F.2d 142· 7th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that cashing a check did not constitute acceptance of an offer when the offer prescribed a specific mode of acceptance (defendant's acknowledgment form), and therefore the terms of the acknowledgment form became part of the contract.
• Taylor v. Hercules, Inc.
  780 F.2d 171· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding his entitlement to severance pay, as the relevant plan excluded retirees.
• Thurman v. Whitfield
  751 F.2d 90· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact exist regarding whether the defendants implicitly agreed to pay for the plaintiff's ideas and whether the televised series was substantially similar to the plaintiff's script.
• T. O. F. C., Inc. v. The United States
  683 F.2d 389· Ct. Cl.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff's contract claim against Conrail and that the defendant's actions did not constitute a compensable taking of the plaintiff's property under the Fifth Amendment.
• Krigel v. The United States
  662 F.2d 741· Ct. Cl.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for unredeemed mutilated currency was not a breach of an implied-in-fact contract, as the obligation to redeem is statutory and regulatory, and the plaintiff failed to prove the amount of redeemable currency delivered.
• Diamond v. The United States
  657 F.2d 1194· Ct. Cl.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding no abuse of discretion or implied-in-fact contract, and thus no jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claim for damages.
• DSI Corp. v. The United States
  655 F.2d 1072· Ct. Cl.· 1981-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the government's challenge to a chattel mortgage's validity, even if it diminished the mortgage's value, did not constitute a taking or a breach of contract, nor was the government estopped from challenging it.
• Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Alter Co.
  617 F.2d 397· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant carrier's contractual obligations ended upon delivery of barges to the plaintiff's integrated terminal facilities, and the plaintiff failed to establish benefit to the carrier for fleeting and shifting services.
• Cities Serv. Gas Co. v. The United States
  580 F.2d 433· Ct. Cl.· 1978-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiff is entitled to recover the reasonable market value of natural gas supplied to the Army on a quantum meruit basis, as established by expert testimony on comparable sales and alternative fuel prices.