79 A.3d 394
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Dolan and McQuaide had a 1997-relationship that evolved toward a car wash venture, Diamond Car Wash, with an alleged equal-profit partnership.
- Dolan drafted plans, contracts, branding, and projections for Diamond Car Wash between 2002-2005.
- The parties separated as Diamond Car Wash opened in October 2005; Dolan alleged lack of compensation and records access.
- Plaintiff asserted breach of contract, promissory estoppel, accounting and unjust enrichment among other claims.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to McQuaide on most counts; on remand, only unjust enrichment survived until amended judgment.
- Dolan timely appealed from the final judgment in 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a definite oral contract or promissory estoppel | Dolan argues an oral partnership existed with definite terms | McQuaide contends terms were vague; no definite promise | No definite contract or promissory estoppel found |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim survives given evidence of service value | Dolan asserts fair market value supports enforcement | McQuaide argues lack of express/implied definite terms bars recovery | Unjust enrichment viable; genuine dispute over value requires trial |
| Whether Dolan’s untimely motion to revise was properly struck | Counsel’s mistake caused delay | Timeliness and prejudice require strict rule enforcement | Court did not disturb judgment; no reversible prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Robinson v. Gardiner, 196 Md. 213 (1950) (contract must be definite; vague terms void)
- Mogavero v. Silverstein, 142 Md.App. 259 (2002) (oral promises must be definite to form contract)
- Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. v. New Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs, 155 Md.App. 415 (2004) (unjust enrichment and quantum meruit framework clarified)
- Hill v. Cross Country Settlements, LLC, 402 Md. 281 (2007) (elements of unjust enrichment defined; three-part test)