Seawest Services Association v Copenhaver Case Brief Study

Seawest Services Association v Copenhaver Brief - Case Study Example Residents outside the housing development that received the water services were also required to pay the supply and maintenance fee. The Copenhavers were limited members of the housing development, they purchased a house outside the housing development but received water services from Seawest Services Association. The Copenhavers paid for the water services for eight years since 2001 (Clarkson, Miller & Cross 233). In 2009, they refused to pay any water bills and maintenance bills. Seawest Services Association sued the Copenhavers. The courts found the defendant liable for the charges. The plaintiff, Copenhaver, appealed.Rule In an instance where a party enters into an agreement with another party, the courts have a mandate to decide whether there existed a valid quasi-contract between the parties. Application A quasi-contract is a contract that is implied by the law. There are not actual contracts. The Copenhavers did not have an actual contract with Seawest Services Association. Ho wever, the defendant knew the fact that no residence could be provided with water services without paying supply fee to the Seawater Services Association (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 233). Consequently, this meant that a quasi-contract between the parties. Conclusion The court ruled that the quasi-contract does not allow for the enrichment of the Copenhavers as a result of unpaid water supply and maintenance charges (Clarkson, Miller & Cross, 233). For this reason, the defendant is found liable for the charges incurred.