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

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 court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

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