Court Opinion

ID: 9718087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:16:46.092696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.268532
License: Public Domain

Hallows, J.
(dissenting). If the amendment of the complaint is allowed the defendant should be given an opportunity to put in his defense to the amended complaint. The pretrial conference, which has for one of its purposes the clarification of issues, should have resulted in an amendment of the complaint and avoided what happened in this case. However, the plaintiff went to trial on allegations of quantum meruit, which it did not prove, and what it attempted to prove over the objections of the defendant was a radically different cause of action. At the time of submission of the case for determination a motion was made to amend, which was opposed by the defendant. The matter was taken under advisement. To allow this amendment a year after the case is submitted for determination to the court is prejudice to the defendant.
The theory of the cause of action and the admissibility of evidence were subjects of disagreement during the trial. Loose pleading and practice should not be encouraged by the tardy application of secs. 269.44 and 263.28, Stats. Both of these sections are to aid justice and their application without giving the defendant a chance to defend the amended pleading is unjust. I do not think a defendant must anticipate adverse rulings by the trial court or put in a defense to a nonpleaded cause of action in order to protect himself.
Furthermore, the proof does not sustain a cause of action either for unjust enrichment or on an implied *468promise to pay for the road, the respective grounds on which the trial court and the majority opinion justify the amendment. Unjust enrichment is an inapplicable doctrine because it assumes the defendant received an unjust benefit which in fact is not true. If unjust enrichment is applicable here, then nearly every breach of promise may be turned into an unjust enrichment case. We think the court is in error in implying the defendant consented to the town’s construction of the road. The town never notified the defendant to construct the road and the defendant had no power to stop the town. Knowledge of the defendant that if he failed to construct the road that the town would is not a basis for a consent.
At most, the proof showed damages for a breach of an alleged promise to construct the road. The case should be sent back for further proceedings.