United States Eighth Circuit

In an action brought by an architectural firm for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against a school district, a judgment in favor of plaintiff on the contract claim is affirmed, but a ruling against plaintiff on the unjust enrichment claim is vacated where: 1) the parties' agreement did not constitute an agreement that plaintiff would continue work through the construction phase of a school improvement project; 2) the district court correctly interpreted the issue of the compensation due to plaintiff under the contract; 3) plaintiff could not recover compensation under the contract for certain services because the district did not agree to a fee for that work; 4) no contingency arrangement existed between the parties under which the district was required to compensate plaintiff fully for all of its pre-funding work if funding was obtained; but 5) the district court's basis for denying a quasi-contractual recovery for services other than those associated with a study and fund-raising was incorrect.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/31/2007
• Published 06/01/2007

Judges

• ARNOLD, Circuit Judge., Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Kirk S. Blecha, argued, Omaha, NE (Lindsay Kay Lundholm, Omaha, on the brief), for appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Randall H. Stefani, argued, Des Moines, IA (Danielle J. Haindfield, Des Moines, on the brief), for appellee.