¶1Dissenting. I respectfully dissent because I feel that the evidence in this case is clear that the agreement did not limit Conrad’s compensation to $150 per acre. It may well be that appellant claimed credit for more hours than he should have because of attempts to work when the soil conditions, due to weather, were not proper for land clearing or the use of Conrad’s equipment. I agree that the case is not one for the application of quantum meruit and that Conrad is probably not entitled to the full amount claimed by him.
255 Ark. 327
Conrad v. Carter
Decided October 22, 1973
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1973-10-22
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1979
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1973-10-22
View the full empirical analysis of this case →