How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jane T (LLC) Your Own Question
Jane T (LLC)
Jane T (LLC), Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 8435
Experience:  Worked in corporation's law department; business formations, formalities, and other business matters
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
Jane T (LLC) is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Debate the correctness of the decision of the court in the

This answer was rated:

Debate the correctness of the decision of the court in the case of Davis v. General Foods Corp. (1937)
In the case at bar, Davis v. General Food Corp, (1937), the Plaintiff (P) wrote a letter to the Defendant (D) offering to reveal an idea of a food product to D. D's response basically stated that they would "consider her idea" but the matter of compensation rested solely in D's discretion.
The court stated that the nature of the risk was whether P had assumed the risk of being paid less than she had expected, when she voluntarily had given D the unlimited right to determine the price to pay her after she had already given D the idea of the food product.
The Issue here is "was there an implied promise to pay a reasonable value for the P's recipe?"
The court held that when P gave D the unlimited right to determine the price of the goods, the courts cannot enforce payment by D.
The court's reasoning was that the wording of the letter was to



Although the decision certainly means that the D got something valuable for nothing that fact does not mean "unjust enrichment" occured. An "unjust enrichment" or quantum meruit is an equitable remedy that courts use to prevent unfairness from occuring where a D receives something of value and only by paying the P would unfairness be avoided. While it is unfair for the P here to receive nothing, this is exactly what the P agreed to do. The P allowed D to have all power to determine what they would pay, if anything. The P made a bad bargain and should have been more careful, but courts are not in the business of fixing "bad bargains." Unjust enrichment is meant to prevent unfairness, while the P may have entered a bad and unprofitable agreement, she nonetheless did so willingly and knowingly and that is not unjust enrichment because to find "unjust enrichment" here would negate the valid contract that was entered into.

Jane T (LLC) and other Business Law Specialists are ready to help you