Implied In Fact Contract

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

• Duran v. Hotelerama Assocs., Ltd.
  892 So. 2d 505· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-11-17
  The court held that the hotel was not a statutory employer for workers' compensation immunity purposes because its arrangement with the club was a perk, not a contractual obligation to its guests.
• Cap. Mgmt. Co. v. The Church Ins. Co. et. al.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2004-09-10
  The Court granted Intervenor Brown's motion for summary judgment and denied Capital Management Company's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court held that the Delaware Supreme Court's prior decision, establishing the "law of the case," precluded Capital from relitigating the
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Iran Lawrence v. C.A. No. 99C-02-190-JRS Augustine Dibiase, JR.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2001-02-27
  The court held that while an implied in fact contract did not exist due to a lack of meeting of the minds on essential terms like price, a quasi contract was established. The defendants were unjustly enriched by the plaintiff's design services, and therefore, judgment was entered
• Schism v. United States
  19 F. Supp. 2d 1287· N.D. Fla.· 1998-08-31
  The court held that recruiters' assurances of free lifetime medical care did not create an implied contract binding the government, as these assurances conflicted with existing regulations and recruiters lacked actual authority to make such promises. The Fifth Amendment claim als
• Schism v. United States
  972 F. Supp. 1398· N.D. Fla.· 1997-06-10
  The court held that plaintiffs' breach of contract and Fifth Amendment claims related to pre-1956 military medical benefits could proceed, but their age discrimination claims under the ADEA and Fifth Amendment were dismissed.
• In re WES DOR v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc.
  996 F.2d 237· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-18
  The court held that the Bank, as a transferee of a fraudulent transfer, is liable for the amount of the transfer less any value it extended to the Debtor, which is limited to the direct benefit the Debtor received from loans extended to its parent.
• Motorola, Inc. v. The United States
  988 F.2d 113· Fed. Cir.· 1993-03-03
  The court held that a non-bidder cannot establish an implied-in-fact contract based solely on participation in specification development, thus lacking standing for equitable relief in a pre-award contract dispute.
• Girling Health Sys., Inc. v. The United States
  949 F.2d 1145· Fed. Cir.· 1991-11-22
  The court held that the instructions on IRS Form 2553 did not create an implied-in-fact contract because they lacked the necessary definiteness of terms and mutuality of intent. Therefore, the Claims Court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Kunkler v. Fort Lauderdale Hous. Auth.
  764 F. Supp. 171· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-15
  The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims against both FLHA and HUD.
• Bushkin Assocs., Inc. v. Raytheon Co.
  906 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1990-06-08
  Prejudgment interest should be added to a quantum meruit award under Massachusetts law, and interest should be computed from the date of demand, as stipulated by the parties.
• Geza J. Jako, M.D. v. Pilling Co.
  848 F.2d 318· 1st Cir.· 1988-06-08
  The court held that summary judgment for the plaintiff on breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims was appropriate, but summary judgment for the defendant on a $5,000 advance counterclaim was not.
• Kent Jenkins Sales, Inc. v. Angelo Bros. Co.
  804 F.2d 482· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-03
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to create a jury question regarding whether the employment contract was terminable only for good cause and whether commissions were due on reorders after termination. However, the court affirmed the district court's decision that th
• Thunderbird Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Seaman Timber Co., Inc.
  734 F.2d 630· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18
  The court held that the seller was not liable for freight charges because there was insufficient evidence to establish it was the consignor or a party to an implied contract with the carrier.
• ATL, Inc. v. The United States
  735 F.2d 1343· Fed. Cir.· 1984-06-08
  The court should hold that the Claims Court has jurisdiction over pre-award contract claims based on an implied-in-fact contract, and that 10 U.S.C. § 2393 does not bar such claims if the suspension was not made pursuant to established administrative procedures.
• The Sec. Bank & Tr. Co. v. The United States
  731 F.2d 861· Fed. Cir.· 1984-04-05
  The court held that a breach of regulations does not give rise to a claim for money, and therefore recovery is barred.
• C.P. Squire Contractors, Inc. v. The United States
  716 F.2d 865· Fed. Cir.· 1983-08-30
  The dissenting judge would hold the Government liable for defective specifications prepared by its agent, RLA, and would remand for trial on claims for extra work.
• Airborne Data, Inc. v. The United States
  702 F.2d 1350· Fed. Cir.· 1983-03-11
  The court affirmed the Claims Court's judgment, holding that the government breached an implied contract to maintain the confidentiality of plaintiff's trade secret, and remanded for determination of damages.
• Ocean Sci. & Eng'g, Inc. v. The United States
  595 F.2d 572· Ct. Cl.· 1979-01-18
  The court held that the United States did not infringe Bascom's patent because the alleged infringing activity occurred outside U.S. territorial waters, and the patent laws are strictly construed to apply only within the United States.
• Inv. Serv. Co. v. Roper
  588 F.2d 764· 9th Cir.· 1978-12-29
  The court held that the guarantors' liability could be based on an implied-in-fact contract, even if the written guaranty was not binding, and that collateral estoppel did not apply.
• Mauritz A. Sterner v. The United States
  434 F.2d 656· Ct. Cl.· 1970-12-11
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of an implied contract for the use of his ideas or products, and that his ideas were placed in the public domain.
• Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. The United States
  301 F.2d 342· Ct. Cl.· 1962-04-04
  A steamship company cannot recover compensation from the United States for carrying mails if it received packet privileges or other preferred treatment from the foreign country in exchange for gratuitous carriage of that country's mails.
• United States v. Gallagher
  166 F.2d 841· 9th Cir.· 1948-03-31
  The court held that the trial court erred in calculating damages based on the original cost of the road, rather than its established value in a prior condemnation proceeding.