Opinion ID: 1176294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Water Hauling Claim

Text: Parliment's second claim is based on his demand for compensation from Yukon Flats for hauling water. The trial court found that, after the conversation between Parliment and Gassman, Yukon Flats was aware that Parliment expected to be paid for his services. The court concluded that recovery for these services was justified [e]ither on the basis of quantum meruit or an actual contract. We dismiss the latter theory of liability. Parliment's attorney expressly conceded the contract issue at trial, stating: We have not found any evidence of an actual contract as pled in count four. We are proceeding on the quantum meruit theory. [14] The theory of quantum meruit, like all theories of quasi-contract, [15] is based on the inequity of allowing a defendant to be unjustly enriched. See Alaska Sales & Service v. Millet, 735 P.2d 743, 746 (Alaska 1987). We have established three essential elements to a quasi-contract claim: (1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff, (2) an appreciation by the defendant of such a benefit, and (3) acceptance and retention by the defendant of the benefit under circumstances making it inequitable for him to retain the same without paying for it. Id. In this case, the first two elements are undoubtedly satisfied. Parliment clearly conferred a benefit on Yukon Flats by hauling water, and Yukon Flats does not dispute the fact that it willingly received and appreciated these services. The remaining question is whether it would be unjust to allow the district to retain this benefit without paying for it. As we stated in Alaska Sales & Service, [w]here a defendant has given fair consideration or value to a third party in exchange for the benefits conferred by the plaintiff, there is no windfall and no recovery will lie. Id. We agree with Yukon Flats' contention that it was not unjustly enriched, since it paid fair consideration for the services in question by continuing to supply electricity to the BIA school. In reaching this conclusion, we are persuaded by the fact that the practice of hauling water existed throughout the time both schools existed in Venetie. [16] Parliment's demand for compensation did not change the terms of the agreement found by the trial court to have existed between the two schools; water was still exchanged for electricity. Gassman's threat to cut off the BIA's electricity unless water was supplied as agreed is further evidence of the district's understanding that water was to be provided as a quid pro quo for the electricity supplied by Yukon Flats. We conclude that Yukon Flats was not unjustly enriched by the benefit conferred upon it by Parliment. Accordingly, the superior court's finding on this issue is reversed.