Coon v. Schoeneman

Harold Coon (plaintiff) and Frank Schoeneman (defendant) were in the homebuilding business. According to Coon’s unrefuted testimony, Schoeneman told Coon that Schoeneman owned certain lots in Irving and Arlington and needed someone to build houses on them. The parties agreed that Coon would build the houses, Schoeneman would finance the venture, a third party would sell the homes, and any profits would be split three ways. Coon built seven houses in Irving of different values and started to build four houses in Arlington. At that point, Schoeneman told Coon the remaining Irving lots had been sold to someone else and proposed a different deal for Arlington. For Arlington, the parties agreed that Coon would pay Schoeneman $350 a house, Schoeneman would provide the lots, and Coon would receive all the profits from the sale of a house. Further, Schoeneman agreed he would not sell any lots to other local builders and Coon would have an inventory of five houses at any given time. When Coon had completed four houses in Arlington, he discovered that Schoeneman had sold the remaining lots to other builders. Schoeneman eventually sold the houses Coon had built but never gave Coon any proceeds. After building 11 houses, Coon had not received any payment for his work. Coon sued Schoeneman to obtain his share of profits or, alternatively, a restitution remedy measured by the reasonable value of his services. The trial court disallowed Coon from presenting evidence to the jury regarding the value of his services, restricting Coon to recover on the contract, if at all. Regarding contract damages, Coon was unable to establish that the venture had been profitable. Coon appealed, arguing that he should have been allowed to present evidence on a restitution remedy.