Opinion ID: 1170699
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: enforceability of the weber-rietman agreement

Text: The facts of this case fit within the decisions of Fairchild v. Mathews, 91 Idaho 1, 415 P.2d 43 (1966), and Guyman v. Anderson, 75 Idaho 294, 271 P.2d 1020 (1954), where this Court allowed lien claimants to recover on the theory of quantum meruit for land leveling. The former case also concerned the failure of the parties to agree on the price to be paid for land leveling work and held that the district court properly resolved the dispute by allowing the workman to recover the reasonable value of his services performed on the defendant's land which were to defendant's benefit. In that case as in the present record, there was uncontroverted testimony from an impartial witness familiar with leveling work describing the prevailing rates charged for similar work. In the present case, the rates charged by respondents were at the lower end of the rate scale for the area. Appellants' contention that there can be no lien as the jury found no contract flies in the face of the record. The parties reached an agreement that respondent was to perform certain work. Appellants' agent, Mr. Rietman, apparently an experienced businessman, made daily inspections as the work progressed and observed the heavy equipment being operated. The court found that the work performed improved the land. Considering the number of days worked and the equipment utilized Mr. Rietman was at least put on notice that the rate of $7.00 per acre was unreasonable, and that an inquiry on his part would have been appropriate. In cases where one party has accepted valuable services under circumstances where he ought to pay, courts have implied a promise to pay and allowed recovery for the reasonable value of the services. Hixon v. Allphin, 76 Idaho 327, 281 P.2d 1042 (1955); Nagele v. Miller, 73 Idaho 441, 253 P.2d 233 (1953); Shurrum v. Watts, 80 Idaho 44, 324 P.2d 380 (1958). That reasoning is applicable to situations involving an attempt by a workman to recover for his services by the lien procedure. T.M. Deal Lumber Co. v. Vieux, 179 Kan. 760, 298 P.2d 339 (1956).