Cochran v. Ogletree

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• OCGA § 13-1-1 does not bar recovery under a balancing of the equities where parties laboring under a mutual mistake of fact
• “[PJrinciple of unjust enrichment . . . gave rise to the duty for the plaintiff to pay to the defendants the value of the services and expenses incurred, because the plaintiff received some benefit.”
• where contract was void for vagueness, no binding contract ever came into existence, but party who rendered benefits under the contract under the good faith assumption of a valid contract was entitled to quantum meruit
• where contract was void for vagueness, no binding contract ever came into existence, but party who rendered benefits under the contract under the good faith assumption of a valid contract was entitled to quantum meruit
• theory of unjust enrichment applies when there is no legal contract
• “[The] duty to pay the value for the benefit in unjust enrichment is analogous to quantum meruit in that the duty to pay arises out of the receipt of the benefit accepted ... [but] [q]uantum meruit, unlike unjust enrichment, relies upon an implied promise of compensation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).