Anderson, a farmer, orally agreed to buy a used tractor from the Copeland Equipm
ID: 395408 • Letter: A
Question
Anderson, a farmer, orally agreed to buy a used tractor from the Copeland Equipment Company for $475. Copeland delivered the tractor to Anderson, who used it for 11 days. During this period, Anderson could not borrow enough funds to cover the purchase price. Anderson therefore returned the tractor to Copeland. Both parties agreed that their sales contract was canceled when the tractor was returned. However, Copeland later claimed that under the doctrine of quasi-contract, Anderson was required to pay for the 11-days' use of the tractor. Do you agree with Copeland? Explain your answer. Anderson v. Copeland, 378 P.2d l006 (OK 1963).
Explanation / Answer
No, I would not agree with the same because the concept of quasi contract is valid only when the court creates such a contract and in this case the claim made by Copeland was before the case is taken to the court. The claim may qualify for a quasi contract because there is no official agreement between the parties in this case and the court is yet to decide on the same. If there is a verdict from the court which states in support of the quasi contract then Anderson may have to pay for the same.