## Facts

- Richard E. West bought a racehorse, “Bascom’s Folly,” which arrived lame; West directed that it be returned to the seller.
- The seller refused to accept the horse on May 3, 1962; the van driver sought instructions from West’s trainer.
- West’s trainer told the driver he could do what he wanted with the horse, but it would not be on any farm at West’s expense.
- The driver delivered the horse to Howard E. Bailey’s farm, where Bailey kept, fed, and cared for it until July 3, 1966, when Bailey sold it to a third party.
- Bailey knew there was a dispute over ownership and sent boarding bills to West (and also to the seller).
- West returned the first bill he received with a notation denying ownership and denying any request that the horse be sent to Bailey.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied-in-fact contract arose between Bailey and West obligating West to pay for boarding and care of the horse.
2. Whether Bailey could recover in quasi-contract (restitution/unjust enrichment) for unrequested services where Bailey boarded the horse despite disputed ownership.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for West.
- No contract implied in fact existed because there was no mutual assent or intent to promise between Bailey and West.
- No quasi-contract recovery was available because Bailey’s services were unrequested and Bailey acted as a volunteer in accepting and keeping the horse.

## Legal Principles

- A contract implied in fact requires the same elements as an express contract, including mutual assent and intent to promise, inferred from conduct and circumstances.
- No implied-in-fact contract is created by a benefit conferred by a third party without the alleged obligor’s knowledge or request, especially where the alleged obligor disclaims responsibility.
- Restitution generally is unavailable for benefits officiously or voluntarily conferred without request; unjust enrichment requires, at minimum, circumstances showing acceptance or retention of a benefit that makes nonpayment unjust.
- A party who proceeds with services while aware of uncertainty as to the other party’s obligation assumes the risk of nonpayment absent agreement or legally recognized acceptance.

## Conclusion

Because West neither requested nor assented to Bailey’s boarding of the horse and promptly disclaimed responsibility, the court held there was no implied-in-fact contract and no unjust enrichment; Bailey, having acted without a request amid known ownership disputes, could not shift the cost of his voluntary services to West.


Bailey v. West, 249 A.2d 414 (R.I. 1969)