Richardson Vs. J. C. Flood Company

774 Words2 Pages

In the case Richardson vs. J. C. Flood company the appellate court ruled in favor of J. C Flood Company for the work that was done on Richardson’s property. The reason that the case turned out in J. C. Flood Company’s favor was due to the fact that Richardson would frequently check in on the progress of the work, but made no objection or attempt to stop the extra work from being don’t, until the entire job was finished when the appellant refused to pay any part of the bill submitted. The rule that is being implied on why J. C. Flood Company should receive the compensation for the work done could be that although the contract was never written this is a promissory estoppel which is a noncontractual promise. It was implied and that Richardson …show more content…

C. Flood Company was because Richardson had not tried to stop the work from being done at any point throughout the process. By not stopping the work from being done the court agreed that J. C Flood Company had consent from Richardson to do the work that was necessary. The bill that was presented to Richardson was also a reasonable about for the work that was being done and the job was done to the best it could have been. In conclusion the reason that Richardson was billed for the work being done was because she did not make any attempt to stop it and that gave the impression that J. C. Flood company had the consent of Richardson to do the work to the waterpipe. The conclusion that could apply for Richardson’s refusal to pay the bill could be that she never agreed to the work for the water pipe to be replaced, she was never informed that the water pipe needed to be replaced. She could have also argued that the work was not necessary at the time, or the bill was not a reasonable price and was too high for the work that was …show more content…

Because there was no contract written for the work of the waterpipe replacement, then Richardson should not be held accountable for the payment of the work that wasn’t necessary. Richardson’s refusal to pay for the work would be acceptable because the bill that she received was higher than it should have been after all the work had been completed. The bill included the work for the waterpipe as well which should not have been

Open Document