The Gamewell Company, a Corporation v. The City of Phoenix, a Municipal Corporation

Appellee seeks a rehearing urging among others two points: (1) that this court, in reversing the judgment on the counterclaim assumed that the contract here was entered into “in good faith”, whereas no such finding of good faith was made by the district court, which alone may make such findings; and (2) that we should have remanded the cause for trial (a) of the question of good faith, and (b) of the question of the extent of the city’s enrichment, that is to say, the actual value of the benefits received, so that if some amount over and above such benefits has been paid to Gamewell, the city may recover the over-plus.

We think that the words “in good faith” used by the Supreme Court of Arizona in stating the rule which we adopted (also using the same words), mean no more than “in the absence of bad faith.” The Arizona cases which have followed the same rule disclose no requirement of positive proof or express findings of good faith as a prerequisite to recovery on quantum meruit. Green- lee County v. Webster, 30 Ariz. 245 , 246 P. 543 ; Yuma County v. Hanneman, 42 Ariz. 561 , 28 P.2d 622 ; Town of Hol-brook v. Girand, supra, note 1.

The history of the adoption of this rule…