Connection lost
Server error
Bailey v. West Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A horse farm owner cared for a lame horse left at his farm amid an ownership dispute. He sued the defendant-buyer for boarding costs but lost because the court found no contract and deemed the plaintiff a “volunteer” who could not recover under a quasi-contract theory.
Legal Significance: This case provides a classic illustration of the distinction between contracts implied-in-fact, which require mutual intent, and quasi-contracts. It establishes that an “officious intermeddler” who voluntarily confers a benefit with knowledge of a dispute cannot recover under a theory of unjust enrichment.
Bailey v. West Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant West purchased a racehorse, “Bascom’s Folly,” from a seller. Upon delivery, West’s trainer discovered the horse was lame and, per West’s instructions, shipped it back to the seller. The seller refused to accept the return. The van driver, after being told by West’s trainer that West would not pay for the horse’s board, delivered the horse to Plaintiff Bailey’s farm. Bailey, a horse boarder, accepted the horse despite knowing there was an ownership dispute. The bill of lading clearly showed the horse was consigned to the original seller, not Bailey. Bailey began sending bills for board to both West and the seller. Upon receiving his first bill several months later, West immediately returned it, disclaiming ownership and refusing to pay. Bailey continued to care for the horse for four years before selling it. Bailey then sued West for the cost of care, and the trial court awarded him a limited recovery based on a contract “implied in fact.”
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a contract, either implied-in-fact or implied-in-law (quasi-contract), be established to require a defendant to pay for services rendered when the plaintiff provided those services without request and with full knowledge of an ongoing ownership dispute?
No. The court held that no contract existed. A contract implied-in-fact was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a contract, either implied-in-fact or implied-in-law (quasi-contract), be established to require a defendant to pay for services rendered when the plaintiff provided those services without request and with full knowledge of an ongoing ownership dispute?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent distinguishing the requirements for contracts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Legal Rule
A contract implied-in-fact requires mutual agreement and an intent to promise, inferred Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
Legal Analysis
The court first rejected the trial court's finding of a contract implied-in-fact. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id e
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract implied-in-fact requires evidence of mutual intent to contract, which