Staley v. Taylor

How courts have described this case

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

• reiterating that rule and concluding that, in a case not involving a warranty of value, the measure of a plaintiffs damages is out-of-pocket losses
• “implied-in-fact contracts arise because an accepted course of conduct would permit a reasonable juror to find that the parties understood that their acts were sufficient to manifest an agreement”
• trial court did not err in granting judgment notwithstanding verdict on fraud claim where plaintiff did not introduce evidence from which jury reasonably could have properly determined the economic damages suffered as a result of defendants’ misrepresentations
• only difference between an implied-in-fact contract and an express contract is means by which the parties manifest agreement; in an implied-in-fact contract, the parties’ agreement is inferred from conduct; the two types of contracts have the same legal effect
• the term “implied contract” refers either to a contract implied in fact or to one implied in law; the latter obligation is created “‘by the law for reasons of justice, without any expression of assent’” (quoting Arthur Linton Corbin, 1 Corbin on Contracts § 19, 46 (1963))
• the term “implied contract” refers either to a contract implied in fact or to one implied in law; the latter obligation is created “‘by the law for reasons of justice, without any expression of assent’” (quoting Arthur Linton Corbin, 1 Corbin on Contracts § 19, 46 (1963)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).