Court Opinion

ID: 9448117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:23:44.315678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:18.014562
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Don’t allow anyone to volunteer to show you how you can better your lot or you will be quantum-meruit[ed] for his efforts even though they never bear fruit. That is the lesson taught by the majority’s holding in the above.
Here the plaintiff volunteered to conduct studies of an effective method to expand defendant’s direct manufacturer-to-customer activities to the field of jobber distribution and was told by the defendant to try its hand at it. Contrary to the majority’s view that a “contract” was entered into between the parties is *754the District Court’s factual finding that there never was a contract.1
Moreover, the majority’s view that plaintiff performed services “beneficial to or at the request” of the defendant is not sustained by the record. It shows that the defendant never put to use the unripened fruit of the plaintiff’s exploratory studies and that the plaintiff did not enter into such studies at the request of the defendant.
I would reverse the judgment of the District Court.

. The District Court in its oral opinion found:
“[T]he definiteness required of an explicit contract of this nature, the mutuality required of such a contract is not there.”