Arkansas Supreme Court - 83 Ark. 601
In the 1907 case Cotnam v. Wisdom, the Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with a situation where surgeons treated an unconscious patient and sought payment for their services. The case reached the state's highest court after the lower court awarded damages to the surgeons, who sued the deceased patient's administrator. The defendant claimed they were not responsible for the costs, as no contract was made between the surgeons and the deceased.
The court's main focus was to determine if the surgeons could receive payment based on a quasi-contract or implied contract theory. Ultimately, the court decided that the surgeons could be compensated for providing necessary assistance to someone in a vulnerable situation.
The reasoning behind this decision was the idea of a quasi-contract or implied contract. Although no actual agreement was made, the law recognizes a moral obligation to prevent unfair enrichment in these situations. The court used the quantum meruit doctrine, meaning that when someone provides a benefit to another without a formal agreement, they can recover reasonable compensation.
This case is significant because it highlights how courts interpret and enforce quasi-contracts and apply the quantum meruit doctrine to prevent unfair enrichment. Additionally, it demonstrates the recognition of moral obligations in relation to emergency assistance. As an early Arkansas contract law case, Chief Justice Hill provided the opinion.
This legal case involves a dispute over an implied contract, also known as a quasi-contract or constructive contract. The court explains that an implied contract can be inferred by law based on the circumstances, and individuals can be held liable for necessaries provided to them in good faith. The court cites legal sources to support the concept of implied contracts and demonstrates its practical application in Lewis v. Lewis. The court also notes that evidence regarding a patient's financial status cannot be considered in cases where there is no contract, but may be admissible if it was a factor considered by both parties when services were rendered and accepted. The defendant's attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the plaintiff was refused, and evidence regarding the deceased's bachelor status and the value of his estate was allowed to be presented.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.