Day V Caton

day v. Caton 119 MASS. 513 1876 FACTS Plaintiff sidereal day built a beleaguer between twain adjacent estates in Boston and postulate suspect Carton to turn out for a portion of the wall. On the other hand, defendant Caton claimed that there was no express exact between Plaintiff Day and himself whereas his stamp eat did not insinuate any contract to pay anything for it. In the trial court, the jury found for Plaintiff Day and defendant Caton filed the appeal. ISSUE OR QUESTIONWas the particular ample of itself to establish the existence of a contract? Whether the silence of a ships company seeing operate which actually the party got the benefit DECISION Upheld REASON OR RULE 1) NO. The fact that the complainant expected to be paid for the pretend would certainly not be sufficient of itself to establish the existence of a contract. Because the complainant expected to be paid for the brick wall ,though the defendant did not know that the plaintiff was acting with that expectation. ) Yes. Although a promise to pay for the wall would not be implied from the fact,which the twist of the wall was not in symmetry with the request of the defendant,the silence of defendant Caton was interact as evidence of an acceptance of pay for the wall. The defendant had the opportunity to reject the mental synthesis of the wall , instead, he stood by in silence and saw valuable services rendered upon his real estate by the hard-on of a structure.A PERSONAL COMMENT In this case, the jury found for Plaintiff Day. I also agree with the decision. However, I need to emphasize that I think this movement can be avoided. If plaintiff Day and defendant Caton can write down an agreement before building the wall, they go forth have an express contract. Plaintiff Day also can acknowledge defendant Caton that he will require a payment. ZHIBO ZHOU 02/03/2012