- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Contract Law
- Date Filed: 07-14-2021
- Case #: A169460
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lageson, P.J., for the Court; James, J.; & Kamins, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Appellant, Patton, hired Respondent, Cox, to help develop a property for the purpose of selling it and after completing 12 years of work, Cox brought a claim for unjust enrichment. Patton appealed a trial court’s omission of a “benefit conferred” element from the jury instructions on a quantum meruit claim. Patton assigned error to the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury that a benefit conferred was an element of quantum meruit. Although the trial court did not include a “benefit conferred” instruction in the quantum meruit claim, it did instruct the jury on benefit conferred in regard to the unjust enrichment claim. "We must affirm despite trial court error if there is little likelihood that the error affected the verdict." State v. Parkerson, 310 Ore. App. 271, 278, 484 P3d 356 (2021). "To make that determination, the court considers the instructions as a whole and in the context of the evidence and record at trial, including the parties' theories of the case with respect to the various charges and defenses at issue." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court determined that Patton conceded that Cox had conferred a benefit to him. Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court’s omission was harmless. Affirmed.