Also known as: implied in law obligation · implied-in-law obligations · quasi-contract · constructive obligation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An obligation imposed by operation of law that supplies the basis for recovery in a retained heartbalm action such as breach of promise to marry. The obligation permits damages for expenditures, reputational harm, mental anguish, and injury to health even though no express contract exists.
Alex promises to marry Jordan and Jordan incurs expenses preparing for the wedding. Alex later refuses to marry. Jordan sues. The court treats the implied-in-law obligation as the basis for a quasi-contract claim, allowing recovery of actual damages despite the absence of an enforceable express contract.
Taylor promises marriage to Morgan, then abruptly marries someone else. Morgan proves the conduct was malicious. The court recognizes an implied-in-law obligation supporting both compensatory and punitive damages under the retained heartbalm action.
In 1986 Colette Bohatch joined the Washington, D.C. office of Butler & Binion as an associate after several years as Deputy Assistant General Counsel at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The small office consisted only of managing partner John McDonald, partner Richard Powers, and Bohatch, and it performed work almost exclusively for Pennzoil. Bohatch was elevated to partner in February 1990. After becoming a partner, Bohatch began receiving internal firm reports showing hours worked, billed, and collected by each attorney. From those reports she grew concerned that McDonald was overbilling Pennzoil and discussed the matter with Powers; together they reviewed and copied portions of McDonald's time diary, which increased her concern. On July 15, 1990, Bohatch met with Louis Paine, the firm's managing partner, to report her suspicion that McDonald was overbilling Pennzoil, and Paine stated he would investigate. The next day McDonald informed Bohatch that Pennzoil was dissatisfied with her work and wanted it supervised, the first such criticism she had received. Over the following month Paine and management-committee member R. Hayden Burns reviewed the Pennzoil bills and computer printouts, then discussed the allegations with Pennzoil in-house counsel John Chapman, who had a long-standing relationship with McDonald and reported that Pennzoil was satisfied the bills were reasonable. In August Paine told Bohatch the investigation found no basis for her contentions and advised her to seek other employment while the firm would continue her monthly draw, insurance, office space, and secretary. Bohatch received no further work assignments. In January 1991 the firm denied her any year-end partnership distribution for 1990 and reduced her tentative 1991 distribution share to zero. In June the firm paid her final monthly draw; in August it directed her to vacate her office by November. By September she had secured new employment. She filed suit on October 18, 1991, and three days later the firm formally voted to expel her. The trial court granted partial summary judgment on the wrongful-discharge claim and on post-expulsion fiduciary-duty claims but allowed the pre-expulsion fiduciary-duty and contract claims to proceed to trial. The jury found breaches of both the partnership agreement and fiduciary duty and awarded $57,000 in past lost wages, $250,000 in past mental anguish, $4,000,000 in punitive damages (later remitted), and attorney's fees. The court of appeals reversed the tort judgment for lack of evidence but found a contract breach and rendered judgment for $35,000 plus $225,000 in fees. The Supreme Court of Texas granted writ of error.
View caseThe supplied authority does not address at-will employment. It addresses heartbalm actions that have been abolished by statute in most states.
Supporting sources
The obligation arises by operation of law in a retained heartbalm action rather than from the parties' explicit agreement, permitting recovery of actual damages and certain noneconomic losses.
The supplied authority does not discuss employment status or law-firm obligations. It notes that punitive damages may be awarded when the defendant acted maliciously in a retained heartbalm action.
Supporting sources
…for reporting another associate's misconduct had a valid claim for breach of contract against his law firm based on an implied-in-law obligation to comply with the rules of the profession. 80 N.Y.2d 628, 593 N.Y.S.2d 752, 757, 609 N.E.2d 105, 110 (1992). The court recognized that "[i]ntrinsic to [the hiring of an attorney to…