Henry S. Bloomgarden v. Charles B. Coyer
479 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
Facts
Bloomgarden, a consultant, introduced real estate developers Coyer and Guy to financiers for a large Georgetown waterfront development project. There was no express agreement for a finder's fee. Bloomgarden initially expected his company, SDI, to receive work or a fee, not personal compensation, and only sought a personal fee much later after SDI decided not to participate. The District Court granted summary judgment against Bloomgarden, finding he had no enforceable claim because he did not expect personal compensation at the time of the introductions.
Issue
Can a plaintiff recover a finder's fee under theories of implied-in-fact contract or quasi-contract when, at the time of rendering the services, he did not expect personal compensation and the recipients had no reason to believe such compensation was expected?
Holding
No. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Bloomgarden could not recover a finder's fee because he did not expect personal compensation for his services at the time he rendered them, and the circumstances did not put the appellees on notice of such an expectation.
Rule
To establish an implied-in-fact contract for services, the provider must show they expected compensation from the recipient and the recipient had reason to understand this. For quasi-contractual recovery (unjust enrichment), compensation is not mandated if services were rendered gratuitously, for business advantage, or without the provider contemplating a personal fee, or if the recipient could not reasonably have supposed a fee was expected, especially when the expectation of compensation did not exist at the time services were rendered.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.