Opinion ID: 1964882
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Breach of an Implied Contract

Text: Perhaps realizing that the language in the faculty handbooks did not give her an automatic right to tenure upon the expiration of her probationary appointments, Dr. Paul asserts that she also had an implied contract to the effect that, if she successfully completed the probationary appointments, she would be awarded indefinite tenure. Under the theory of an implied contract, a plaintiff may recover quantum meruit upon establishing (1) valuable services being rendered; (2) for the person sought to be charged; (3) which services were accepted by the person sought to be charged, used and enjoyed by him or her; and (4) under such circumstances as reasonably notified the person sought to be charged that the person rendering the services expected to be paid by him or her. Vereen v. Clayborne, 623 A.2d 1190, 1193 (D.C.1993). Importantly, all the necessary elements of an express contractincluding offer, acceptance, and considerationmust be shown in order to establish the existence of an implied-in-fact contract. Emerine v. Yancey, 680 A.2d 1380, 1383 (D.C.1996). It is in this respect that Dr. Paul's argument fails. The only basis in the record for an enforceable implied contract is Dr. Paul's unsupported statement in her own affidavit that appellees Momoh and Walker assured her that she would receive tenure when she signed the contract for a lecturer position. Such alleged assurance is plainly insufficient to establish the elements of a binding contract, either express or implied. To the contrary, moreover, is the lecturer contract itself, which expressly stated that Dr. Paul relinquished all rights to receive tenure. Given the actual language of the lecturer contract, the trial court properly rejected Dr. Paul's claim of an implied contract.