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

Earhart (P) claims that D urged him to begin work on a mobile home park. P expended sums in commencing construction of the park on land owned by D and on adjacent land owned by a third party. The balance of the land was owned by Ervie Pillow and D, and Pillow entered into a contract in which Pillow agreed to sell her land to D on the condition that D obtain financing for the mobile home park. A special use permit allowed construction of the park, but that permit was set to expire unless work began almost immediately. D informed P two days before the expiration of the use permit that he had obtained financing and urged P to commence work immediately; P did so. P then learned that D had lied to him and had not secured financing and that D had even signed a construction contract with another firm. D refused to compensate P for his services and P sued in quantum meruit. The trial court awarded P damages for the work done on D's land but not on the land of the third party; it is an established proposition of law in California that you can’t get recovery for services furnished to a third person, even though the services were furnished at the request of D. Even though P may render services or delivers a product, if it is of no value to D, then D doesn’t pay under quantum meruit. All D must pay for is the reasonable value of what he got, notwithstanding how much it cost P to produce that value. P 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.