BUSA 2106 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Bench Trial, Parol Evidence Rule, Counterclaim
28 Sep 2016
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Who: appellant richard d. c. schrade, jr. , stockbridge. What: pamela ogletree sued billy cochran and gregory d. reed d/b/a cochran & reed on two purported construction contracts that were never performed to recover ,000 deposited on. Contract i and ,000 deposited on contract ii; the defendants answered and countersued for their losses under contract i. ,300 of the deposited funds of ,000 to the plaintiff. The defendants appealed the judgment contending that plaintiff was not entitled to any refund under contract i, because the money was paid voluntarily and that the defendants had no duty to prove their damages. Ogletree did not agree and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Implied promise to pay for services or property. The application of all the rules of contract construction and parol evidence would not provide detailed plans, drawings, and specifications necessary to calculate the cost that plaintiff would owe and defendants were obligated to build.
