Bastian v. Gafford

Gafford (defendant) asked Bastian (plaintiff) to design an office building, and Bastian orally agreed and began drafting plans. After the plans were mostly complete, Gafford's lender required a firm construction bid before financing the project, but Bastian refused to give a firm bid, insisting on a cost-plus arrangement instead. Gafford then hired a different architect and contractor and never used Bastian's plans. Bastian filed a lien for the value of his drafting work and sued to foreclose it, arguing an implied-in-fact contract existed for his services. The trial court ruled for Gafford, reasoning Gafford was not unjustly enriched because he never used the plans, and Bastian appealed, arguing the trial court conflated quasi-contract with contract implied in fact.