This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P closed its landfill. D eventually entered into an agreement with D. The contract was good until 2006. The parties amended their agreement in December 1997 and again in November 1998. The amended agreement expired on June 30, 2007. D originally charged a $35-per-ton disposal rate. This rate included a base rate of $20.50 per ton, which could increase annually on adjustments pegged to the Consumer Price Index; a scheduled 'Tipping Fee,' which was paid to the landfill; and a state surcharge. D agreed not to charge more than it charged other communities in its service area. In April 2005, P entered into an additional and separate contract with D to lease self-contained compactor units. In 2005, because of increasing fuel costs, D sought to increase its rate. On June 30, 2007, when the contract expired, D's rate was $40.52 per ton. On July 2, D increased its rate for accepting the City's waste at the transfer station to $42.50 per ton. P entered into a deal with another town at a cheaper rate and informed D. The new contract would not begin accepting P's waste until November 1, 2007. P continued to use D's transfer station until waste could accepted under the new contract. On July 10, 2007, the start date of the new contract was modified to start in 1 year. D would continue to provide services under the roll-off contract until July 2008 unless otherwise notified. On August 7, 2007, D increased its rate at the transfer station to $60 per ton; P objected within 2 weeks as the new increased bills rolled in. It charged the increased rate only to P. D also increased the disposal rate to $60 per ton. P objected to the increase in price. When the new contract engaged, P canceled its agreements with D. P sued D to recover disposal rates above the $42.50 rate. P sued under an implied contract and unjust enrichment and claimed that the payments were in excess of the reasonable value of the services. The court agreed that D had been unjustly enriched. The court concluded that P had no alternative. The court ruled that the parties intended and did continue their contractual relationship but failed to agree on a price. It ruled that the $42.50 price was a reasonable rate and awarded $51,280.82; the difference paid. Because it considered P's payments involuntary and D's actions unilateral, it rejected D's defenses of waiver, estoppel, and failure to mitigate. On the second contract, the court awarded $48,124.11 to P for the unilateral increase from $42.50 to $60. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.