Henry S. Bloomgarden v. Charles B. Coyer
479 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1973
Facts
Bloomgarden introduced real estate developers Coyer and Guy to financiers for a large Georgetown waterfront development project, seeking a finder's fee. There was no express agreement for compensation, and Bloomgarden initially expected his company, not himself personally, to benefit. He only sought personal compensation much later, after his company declined participation, leading the District Court to grant summary judgment against him.
Issue
Can a plaintiff recover a finder's fee under theories of implied-in-fact contract or quasi-contract when, at the time of rendering the services, he did not expect personal compensation and the recipients had no reason to believe such compensation was expected?
Holding
The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Bloomgarden could not recover a finder's fee because he did not expect personal compensation at the time he rendered the services, and the recipients had no reason to believe he did.
Rule
To establish an implied-in-fact contract for services, the provider must show they expected compensation and the recipient had reason to understand this expectation. Quasi-contractual recovery for unjust enrichment does not apply if services were rendered without an expectation of personal remuneration or if the recipient had no reason to know of such an expectation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.