Opinion ID: 1347974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Contract Question

Text: In granting summary judgment in favor of Catlett and Miller's estate, the District Court held that there was no express contract between Catlett and the County but that an implied contract existed between them. Amtrak argues that the District Court correctly found that no express contract existed between Catlett and the County yet erred in imposing an implied-in-fact contract between them to the detriment of Amtrak. In finding the existence of an implied-in-fact contract, the district judge stated: Where an express contract is not made, but might have been, or in equity and good conscience should have been made, the law will impose the duty and infer the necessary promises to effect a contractual relation between the parties. Virginia Block Co. v. Virginia Mutual Insurance Agency, Inc., 16 B.R. 771 (W.D.Va.1982), quoting from volume 4B Mich.J., Contracts, Section 99. After making this statement, the district judge surveyed the Virginia statutes concerning volunteer fire companies, reviewed the evidence supplied by Catlett concerning the ongoing [close working] relationship between Catlett and [Fauquier County], and noted the requirement in Acts 1970, ch. 187, of which Code § 27-23.6 is a part, that the Act shall be liberally construed. Concluding, the judge said: Liberally construing Section 27-23.6 in light of the evidence before this court regarding the relationship between Fauquier County and Catlett, the Court finds an implied contract does indeed exist between these two parties. We think the District Court correctly stated Virginia law on the subject of implied contracts. See Hendrickson v. Meredith, 161 Va. 193, 200-01, 170 S.E. 602, 605 (1933); Norfolk v. Norfolk County, 120 Va. 356, 361-62, 91 S.E. 820, 821-22 (1917). We also think the Court properly applied that law to the evidence before it. Accordingly, for the purpose of responding to the remaining questions relating to the application of Code § 27-23.6, we will adopt the District Court's views as our own and find the existence of a contract between Catlett and Fauquier County.