## Facts

- Frank Dusenka, Jr. and his father operated a Minneapolis liquor tavern as partners.
- In 1937, the father transferred his one-half interest to the son in exchange for the son’s promise to support the father for life, with the father continuing to help operate the tavern.
- The father’s wife, Katherine Dusenka (the son’s stepmother), was not informed of the transfer and learned of it only after her husband’s death.
- From September 1, 1938, to February 3, 1943, Katherine regularly worked at the tavern, including preparing meals, cleaning, scrubbing, tending bar, and assisting with meals for patrons.
- The father’s health declined beginning in 1938; he became seriously ill in early February 1943 and died shortly thereafter.
- Katherine was not paid by Frank Jr. for her services during the sued-upon period, though she was paid for services performed after her husband’s death at Frank Jr.’s request.
- Katherine admitted she had no intention or expectation of being paid while performing the services and believed she was helping operate what she thought belonged to her husband.
- There was no evidence that Frank Jr. expected to pay for Katherine’s services during the relevant period.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied-in-fact contract to pay for Katherine’s services could be found when both parties acted without any intention or expectation of payment during performance.
2. Whether Katherine could recover in quasi-contract (unjust enrichment) based on her mistaken belief about ownership, absent proof that Frank Jr. wrongfully and knowingly allowed her mistake to confer uncompensated benefits.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the order denying a new trial, leaving in place a directed verdict for Frank Dusenka, Jr.
- No implied-in-fact contract existed because the essential intent to contract for compensation was absent and could not be supplied after the fact.
- No quasi-contract recovery was permitted because the evidence did not show that Frank Jr. wrongfully and knowingly permitted Katherine’s mistake to result in uncompensated benefits to him.

## Legal Principles

- An implied-in-fact contract requires actual intent to contract; a court will not infer a promise to pay contrary to the parties’ common and undisputed intent during performance.
- Voluntary services rendered without an intent to receive compensation, and accepted in reliance on that intent, do not create an implied-in-fact obligation to pay.
- In the absence of an actual contract, quasi-contract relief for unjust enrichment requires proof that the defendant wrongfully and knowingly permitted the plaintiff, acting under a mistake, to confer benefits without compensation.

## Conclusion

Because Katherine rendered services without expecting payment and failed to show that Frank Jr. knowingly and wrongfully took advantage of any ownership mistake, she could not recover under either an implied-in-fact contract theory or unjust enrichment.


Dusenka v. Dusenka, 221 Minn. 234, 21 N.W.2d 528 (Minn. 1946)