## Facts

- A spruce bark beetle epidemic prompted Alaska to implement a Forest Health Initiative and increase forest-planning activity.
- Terry Brady, a private timber entrepreneur, twice applied for a negotiated timber sale of roughly 200 acres near Moose Pass; state forestry officials denied the applications based on land-classification requirements and a policy against negotiated sales where there was competitive interest.
- State law required a Forest Land-Use Plan (FLUP) before timber sales exceeding ten acres could proceed.
- Brady offered to help prepare a site-specific FLUP by gathering data and drafting materials, and state officials accepted and considered his work as part of the planning process.
- After completing the work, the Bradys billed the State about $26,000 for FLUP-related “professional services.”
- The State refused to pay, asserting there was no professional-services contract and no indication during discussions that the Bradys expected compensation.
- The State ultimately denied the requested negotiated sale after determining that a public sale process was legally required.
- The Bradys filed consolidated suits asserting multiple theories, including implied-in-fact contract and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, and challenged broader forestry decision-making.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to the State and the individual forestry officials on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ interactions and the State’s acceptance/use of planning work created an implied-in-fact contract obligating the State to pay for FLUP-related services.
2. Whether the State’s use of the Bradys’ work supported recovery in quantum meruit/unjust enrichment absent a contract.
3. Whether the Bradys’ additional claims against the State and forestry officials could survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgments dismissing all claims.
- The court held no express or implied-in-fact contract was formed for payment of FLUP-related services.
- The court held the Bradys were not entitled to quantum meruit/unjust enrichment recovery on the record presented.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the remaining claims against the State and the forestry officials.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract requires objective manifestations of mutual assent to a binding agreement and sufficiently definite terms, including compensation or a workable method to determine it.
- A party’s post-performance demand for payment, without contemporaneous indication that compensation was expected, supports a finding of no mutual assent.
- Quantum meruit/unjust enrichment requires a non-speculative, measurable benefit conferred on the recipient and circumstances making it unjust to retain that benefit without payment.
- Government agencies do not incur payment obligations merely by accepting or considering voluntary assistance in planning or policy-related work absent proof of contract formation or actionable unjust enrichment.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the Bradys’ suits, ruling that voluntary assistance provided to the State in preparing forest-planning materials did not create an implied contract for compensation and did not support equitable recovery without proof of mutual assent and a concrete, unjustly retained benefit.


Brady v. State, 965 P.2d 1 (Alaska 1998)