Nogales Serv. Ctr. v. Atl. Richfield Co. - 126 Ariz. 133, 613 P.2d 293 (Ct. App. 1980)

Rule:

For a plaintiff to recover under the theory of restitution the defendant must have received a benefit, legal or actual. If the defendant receives a tangible economic gain from the performance of the plaintiff it receives actual benefit. It may be that the defendant does not receive any economic gain as a result of a requested service yet the plaintiff still can recover for the value of the service rendered. This is because the defendant received a legal benefit, to-wit, the bargained for service. The rationale is that if a service is bargained for by one of the parties it is deemed to be of value to him even if it produces no objective gain.

Facts:

Nogales Service Center's (NSC) filed a claim for breach of contract against Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). This is in response to a foreclosure suit filed by ARCO to which ARCO prevailed. The breach of contract claim was based upon an oral agreement with an agent of ARCO. The trial court refused to give the jury instructions requested by NSC on an agent's authority. The jury found in favor of ARCO. NSC appealed the denial of its requested instructions and the verdict. NSC contended that the trial court's refusal to give NSC’s instructions on promissory estoppel, restitution, and the agent's authority was fundamental error. ARCO argued that the oral agreement made by its agent was outside his authority. 

Issue:

Was the trial court’s refusal to instruct on restitution proper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court rejected NSC’s contentions. First, the court found that NSC’s proposed instructions on the agent's authority conflicted with and contradicted the instruction given by the trial court, without objection, which told the jury the agreement was binding only if there was actual or apparent authority. Furthermore, the court ruled that NSC’s objection to the trial court's refusal to give its requested instruction on the agent's authority was a general objection that did not comport with Ariz. R. Civ. P. 51(a). Similarly, the court held that NSC could not assign as error the failure to give its requested instruction on promissory estoppel because NSC withdrew the instructions and they were no longer part of the record. Finally, the trial court's refusal to instruct on restitution was proper because ARCO had not received an actual or legal benefit from NSC.