4 ms·
> And both him and his neighbor said "we'll pay however much you say". That's clearly not true. For example, he wouldn't have paid his house. Note that they'
by anamax 16y ago
> And both him and his neighbor said "we'll pay however much you say".
That's clearly not true. For example, he wouldn't have paid his house.
Note that they're not set up to sign a contract at the scene and even if they were, it would be signed under duress, so it would be unenforceable.
The only way "we'll pay" works is if he has the cash on hand. Do you really want to complain that they didn't offer that option?
- anigbrowl 16y agoActually no. Under a theory of quantum meruit (something having worth), the firefighters could bill the homeowner unless he asked them not to assist. It requires showing a defendant knowingly received a benefit from the plaintiff and retained it afterwards - in this case, a house still standing. Here's a recent Ohio case illustrating the principle - first fire-related one I found. Although this is about a bill for boarding up a property after a fire than actual firefighting, it explains the idea very clearly: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2010/2010-ohio-419.pdf http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/9/2010/2010-oh...