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 Maverick Your Own Question
Maverick
Maverick, Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 5767
Experience:  20 years experience as a civil trial and appellate lawyer
16823287
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Maverick is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I went cdl driving school and they said i fail drug test

Customer Question

I went cdl driving school and they said i fail drug test so.the school tell employer. That i out compliance . But i drove the school trucks 240 hours for completion
JA: What state is this in? And how old is the truck?
Customer: FLEETVILLE PA 2005
JA: Has anything been filed or reported?
Customer: ONLY THE SCHOOL TELL EMPLOYER SO I CANT BE EMPIOYED
JA: Anything else you want the lawyer to know before I connect you?
Customer: HOW DOSE THE SCHOOL LIT ME DRIVE THE TRUCK AND SAY THAT AM OUT COMPLIANCE
Submitted: 2 months ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Maverick replied 2 months ago.

Welcome to Just Answer! My name is***** give me a few minutes to review, analyze and/or research your inquiry and I will be back.

Expert:  Maverick replied 2 months ago.

Yes, this does not sound fair to you if you took the drug test first and then put in the 240 hours. You may be able to recover your fees and the cost of your time on various legal concepts such as detrimental reliance, estoppel, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with prospective business relationships.

In PA, the elements of a claim for unjust enrichment are “benefits conferred on defendant by plaintiff, appreciation of such benefits by defendant, and acceptance and retention of such benefits under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant to retain the benefit without payment of value.” Wiernik v. PHH U.S. Mortgage Corp., 736 A.2d 616, 622 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999), app. denied, 561 Pa. 700, 751 A.2d 193 (2000).

Similarly, an action based on the quasi-contract doctrine of quantum meruit requires that “one person has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another,” and thus cannot be sustained without satisfying the elements of unjust enrichment. Mitchell v. Moore, 729 A.2d 1200, 1202 n.2 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999)

Under Pennsylvania law, the requisite elements of a cause of
action for interference with prospective contractual relations are as
follows: (1) a prospective contractual relationship;(2) the
purpose or intent to harm the plaintiff by preventing the relation from
occurring;(3) the absence of privilege or justification on the part of
the defendant; and (4) the occasioning of actual damage resulting from
the defendant’s conduct. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766B (1979); Phillips v. Selig,
2008 PA Super 244, 959 A.2d 420, 428 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).

You may want to contact a business litigation attorney near you. This link may help you get started.

Please Note: (1) Just Answer’s site disclaimers apply to all levels of service; (2) Most follow-up questions are answered with in the hour; however, if I am not signed on, please allow up to 24 hours; and (3) If we are done, please assign a feedback rating so Just Answer will compensate me for your question. Thank you for using Just Answer.