Credit Bureau Enterprises, Inc. v Pelo Supreme Court of Iowa 2000 1) Facts a) Defendant was hospitalized under an emergency hospitalization order after threatening to commit suicide. b) Initially, Defendant refused to sign a release. c) The release makes the patient or the patient’s insurance provider liable for the hospital. d) According to Defendant, he was awakened at approximately 5:00 A.M. and told by a nurse that the hospital could not insure the safety and return of his person items until he signed the release. e) Defendant then read and signed the release. The release form stated that Defendant understood he would be liable for any portion of the hospital bill not covered by insurance. f) Defendant’s wife filed an application to continue his involuntary hospitalization, but Defendant was released. g) After his release, Defendant refused to pay or authorize his insurance provider to pay his hospital bill. 2) History a) Trial court found the defendant had to pay due to a quasi contract 3) Issues a) Was there an implied contract i) A contract implied by law is one imposed by law on the parties regardless of their assent. Unjust enrichment is one way the law implies a contract between parties. Where one party unjustly benefits at the expense of another, unjust enrichment requires that the benefiting party make restitution. In other words when a person is not acting officiously performs a service for another, which are known and accepted, a promise to pay for the services is implied by law. Restitution may be required even if the services are not requested or voluntarily consented to, for example when consent is impossible or immaterial due to age or mental impairment. Pelo was obligated to pay based on implied law contract theory b) Is the defendant responsible for paying i) The defendant did occur some benefit to the detaining and treatment. ii) There was also probable cause for detaining the defendant based on his history with mental issues. iii) Despite that there was no reason for future hospitalizations play no role on if he should pay or not 4) Judgment: Affirmed Problem 3-2 AYSL has a claim for reliance. The city council agreed to the vote and passed the bill twice through the council already. They made no indication that the bill would not be passed through and encouraged AYSL to start raising money to start the process. The city council also gave them a firm deadline to meet with response to the money that had to be deposited. This deposit deadline forced AYSL to raise a lot of money quickly, relying upon the agreement between the parties. A bilateral contract would be unlikely raised because there was no consideration. There was no benefit or detriment to be applied in the case. Neither is there an option contract because the council does not state that it will not revoke. The council will not be contractually bound to move forward with the project. AYSL may however, have a hard time getting reimbursed for the contract. The city council never made a promise or assurance that the deal was going to get done. AYSL should have known the ends and outs of a city council structure and that the deal could be defeated by a vote.