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

P and D entered into a five-year contract. The parties' agreement contained this provision: '[Dr. Archer] shall provide on-call coverage on a rotating basis and shall be on call as shall be determined from time to time by agreement between [QHG] and [Dr. Archer].' D became dissatisfied with several aspects of his job. He claimed that D repeatedly denied his time-off requests for vacation and continuing medical education and failed to provide adequate personnel and equipment. P claimed that D failed to provide rotating call coverage. With the exception of a few weeks, P was on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for more than two years. In January 2004, D terminated the employment relationship without cause upon 180-days' notice. D had merely exercised its option in the contract to terminate P. P resigned his medical staff privileges in May 2004 because he could no longer operate safely given problems with his hands. The next day, D terminated P for cause. P then sued D for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in that D was unjustly enriched by P providing non-stop call coverage. The court granted D's directed-verdict motion on the unjust-enrichment claim. The breach-of-contract claim went to the jury, which found that D had violated the agreement and awarded P $387,500.00. D appealed the jury's award, and P cross-appealed the dismissal of his unjust-enrichment claim.

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.