Dine v. Harnish

Dine v. Harnish

There was an express verbal agreement that the defendant would pay reduced rent which constituted the parties' agreed compensation; no agreement existed to pay additional house-sitting fees, quantum meruit was inapplicable, and unjust enrichment failed because there was no absence of a juristic reason (the agreed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 NSSM 77
Parties
Claimant: Don Dine; Defendant: Robin Harnish
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Final Decision
Outcome
Counterclaim dismissed; judgment for Claimant
Legal Topics
House Sitting, Implied Contract, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Unconscionability, Damages, Counterclaim
Source Language
english
Contract Unjust Enrichment Equitable Remedies Property Civil Procedure House Sitting Implied Contract Quantum Meruit +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Don Dine

Claimant

Robin Harnish

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an express or implied agreement to pay the defendant additional compensation beyond reduced rent
  2. 2 Whether quantum meruit applies where no agreement to pay a rate was made
  3. 3 Whether unjust enrichment occurred (enrichment, deprivation, absence of juristic reason)

Ratio Decidendi

There was an express verbal agreement that the defendant would pay reduced rent which constituted the parties' agreed compensation; no agreement existed to pay additional house-sitting fees, quantum meruit was inapplicable, and unjust enrichment failed because there was no absence of a juristic reason (the agreed reduced rent justified the enrichment); the contract was not unconscionable; therefore the counterclaim is dismissed and the claimant is entitled to judgment for unpaid amounts plus filing fee.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim dismissed; judgment for Claimant

Orders

  • Judgment for Claimant in the amount of $4,184.86 plus filing fee $85.44, total $4,270.30
  • Counterclaim of Defendant dismissed