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

P to perform specific services to prepare D's computer systems for the year 2000 problem. The parties entered into a written contract dated June 7, 1999, under which P would install a certain software program on D's computers and perform the tasks outlined. Despite the fact that the written contract was not executed until June 7, 1999, P commenced work in March 1999. On July 1, 1999, P submitted a proposal for additional work to remedy additional year 2000 problems that it had identified during its first three months of work. P alleges that D accepted its July 1999 proposal, that it performed this additional work, and that D refused to pay for it. D denies accepting and contends that the additional work P claims to have performed was within the scope of the earlier written contract. D denies that it owes P any additional money. P sued alleging (1) breach of contract; (2) estoppel; and (3) unjust enrichment. The trial court dismissed, sua sponte, the first two counts and allowed P to proceed to trial only on the unjust enrichment count. A jury tried the case, and D moved for a directed verdict. The unjust enrichment count was submitted to the jury, but the trial court declared a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The case was retried before a jury in June 2004, with the same judge presiding. The case was limited to the unjust enrichment count. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of D. This appeal eventually followed. P claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it had to prove that there was an implied in fact contract to prevail on its claim for unjust enrichment.

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.