POWER OF BLOGS

Insight Center: Blogs

Void Means Void - Municipal Contract That Did Not Conform to Statute Is Void and No Claim for Breach or Quasi-Contract or Unjust Enrichment Is Permitted

Aquatic Renovations Sys. v. Vill. of Walbridge, 2018 Ohio App. Lexis 1581 (April 13, 2018)

Author: Michelle Beth Rosenberg

6/21/2018

Read the full post at Constructlaw

Void Means Void - Municipal Contract That Did Not Conform to Statute Is Void and No Claim for Breach or Quasi-Contract or Unjust Enrichment Is Permitted

This post was published on July 7, 2018 in The Pennsylvania Record.

On May 2, 2012, Aquatic Renovations Systems, Inc. (Aquatic) entered into a contract with the Village of Walbridge (the Village) for the installation of a new pool liner (Contract 1). Prior thereto, the Village council adopted an ordinance which authorized the mayor to enter into Contract 1 (Ordinance). On April 12, 2013, the mayor signed a new contract for the balance of the work (Contract 2). A few days after Aquatic completed its work, the pool liner began to lift. The Village then refused to pay Aquatic for the completed and approved work.

Aquatic sued the Village for non-payment, alleging the Village breached Contract 2. Aquatic also alleged that the Village was liable under a theory of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The trial court granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Contract 2 was not valid because it did not comply with the Ohio Revised Statute which required the mayor, the clerk, and the Village administrator to authorize all Village Contracts. Thus, because Contract 2 was unenforceable, Aquatic could not recover under a breach of contract, quantum meruit or unjust enrichment theory.   

Data protection laws have changed, so we have revised our Privacy Policy.

CLOSE