## Facts

- James L. Martin, acting pro se, wrote to a publisher asserting that a book had plagiarized portions of another work and offered to supply a marked copy showing the alleged copying.
- Little, Brown (through an editorial assistant) invited Martin to send his copy of the allegedly infringing book.
- Martin sent the book; Little, Brown acknowledged receipt.
- Martin later learned Little, Brown agreed with his assertions and pursued a copyright infringement claim against a third party.
- After learning of the infringement action, Martin demanded compensation for his efforts and sought one-third of Little, Brown’s recovery.
- Little, Brown denied any duty to pay but tendered a $200 check labeled as an honorarium; Martin retained but did not cash it.
- Martin sued in assumpsit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas, pleading contract, quasi-contract (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissed for failure to state a claim; Martin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ correspondence and conduct created an express or implied-in-fact contract requiring Little, Brown to pay Martin for the information and materials he provided.
2. Whether, absent a contract, Little, Brown was liable in quasi-contract (quantum meruit/unjust enrichment) for using Martin’s volunteered information to obtain a recovery against a third party.
3. Whether the pleaded conduct, including threats of a counterclaim, stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal on demurrer.
- No express or implied-in-fact contract was formed because Martin volunteered the information without indicating an expectation of payment and Little, Brown’s responses did not manifest assent to compensation.
- No quasi-contract claim lay because Martin acted as a volunteer and the benefit retained by Little, Brown was not unjust in a manner requiring restitution.
- The $200 honorarium did not evidence a contractual or restitutionary obligation.
- The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was properly dismissed because the alleged conduct, including threats of legal action, was not extreme and outrageous.

## Legal Principles

- A contract requires a bargained-for exchange; an implied-in-fact contract arises only where conduct and circumstances support a reasonable expectation of payment by the performing party.
- A person who gratuitously provides unsolicited information or services, without conditioning performance on payment, is generally a volunteer and cannot later impose contractual liability.
- Volunteers ordinarily have no right to restitution under quasi-contract; unjust enrichment requires retention of a benefit under circumstances making it unconscionable to do so without payment.
- A discretionary honorarium tendered after the fact, coupled with an express denial of duty, does not create or confirm a legal obligation to compensate.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous; threats to pursue legal claims in a money dispute do not satisfy that standard.

## Conclusion

The court held that a person who voluntarily supplies helpful information without communicating an expectation of compensation cannot later recover in contract or restitution when the recipient profits from the information, and that routine litigation threats do not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.


Martin v. Little, Brown & Co., 450 A.2d 984 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)