## Facts

- The City of Scottsbluff closed its landfill and joined a regional municipal group to obtain disposal services through a long-term landfill contract at $42.50 per ton.
- Waste Connections later acquired the landfill operation and used a transfer station where the City delivered waste; Waste Connections hauled the waste to its landfill.
- The long-term contract expired on November 30, 2006, and the parties did not immediately execute a new long-term agreement.
- After expiration, Waste Connections continued accepting the City’s waste temporarily and initially charged $42.50 per ton.
- About one month later, Waste Connections unilaterally increased the rate to $60 per ton; the City objected but continued paying.
- The City presented evidence that Waste Connections threatened to stop hauling the City’s waste unless the City paid the higher rate, and that the City lacked a practical immediate alternative.
- The parties also had a separate roll-off agreement for containers and related disposal; its disposal rate was tied to the prior contract rate and was likewise increased to $60 per ton after the expiration.
- The City sued seeking recovery of the difference between $42.50 and $60 per ton under contract and unjust enrichment theories.
- After a bench trial, the district court ruled for the City, finding economic duress and unjust enrichment and awarding restitution for alleged overpayments.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ post-expiration conduct created an implied-in-fact contract for temporary transfer-station disposal services, and, if so, what price term applied.
2. Whether the City’s payment of the $60-per-ton rate was induced by economic duress, making the payments involuntary and supporting restitution for unjust enrichment.
3. How to determine the applicable price for services under the express roll-off contract after the related long-term disposal contract expired.
4. Whether the district court correctly determined the reasonable value of roll-off services for purposes of restitution.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Held that the parties formed an implied-in-fact contract for temporary transfer-station disposal services after the long-term contract expired.
- Held that the implied contract price term was $42.50 per ton, based on the parties’ continued performance and prior course of dealing.
- Affirmed the finding of economic duress and unjust enrichment supporting restitution of overpayments caused by the coerced rate increase.
- Reversed the district court’s determination of the reasonable value of services under the roll-off contract and remanded for a proper reasonable-price determination supported by evidence.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract arises from mutual agreement and intent inferred from conduct; if shown, it is enforceable like an express contract.
- Economic duress exists when a party assents because it has no reasonable alternative and the other party obtains assent through a wrongful or improper threat; payments made under duress are not voluntary acceptance of a modification.
- Unjust enrichment supports restitution when a defendant retains a benefit at the plaintiff’s expense under circumstances making retention unjust, including where payments were extracted by economic duress.
- When an enforceable contract lacks an operative price term for a period of performance, the factfinder may determine a reasonable price/value based on competent evidence rather than assumption.

## Conclusion

The court treated the parties’ temporary, post-expiration waste disposal arrangement as an implied contract at the prior rate and upheld restitution because the higher rate was obtained through economic duress, but it required further proceedings to determine the reasonable price for roll-off services after the related pricing reference expired.


City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., Inc., 282 Neb. 848, 809 N.W.2d 725 (Neb. 2011)