Citations
- 324 F.2d 354
Full opinion text
PER CURIAM.
The complaint filed in the District Court contained two counts, one of which-was based on express contract and the-other on quasi contract. In substance, plaintiffs’ claim was that they submitted to defendant in confidence certain alleged new and novel ideas, suggestions, devices and inventions relating to improvements in the bodies of automobiles-in an effort to induce defendant to purchase the same and that defendant wrongfully appropriated them without compensating plaintiffs therefor, to their damage in the amount of $5,000,000.00.
The case was submitted to the District Judge on defendant’s motion for summary judgment which was supported by affidavits, exhibits and depositions. The District Judge gave careful consideration to the issues involved in a sixteen page well-reasoned memorandum opinion in which he granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs have appealed from the order granting the motion for summary judgment.
The alleged new and novel ideas submitted consisted of (1) a sunshade visor extending across the windshield and around the top, sides and rear of an automobile with a motor attachment which operated to protrude or recede it; (2) automobile seats which would recline ■or tilt by means of a push button control; (3) seat leg rests; descriptive material stressing additional space for leg room and comfort; (4) a recessed baby ■seat for comfort and safety of children; (5) a dome light with sufficient candlepower for reading and (6) an automobile ■embodying all of the suggested features. Plaintiffs did not claim under any patent and indeed offered no proof that any of the ideas were patentable.
It was not seriously contended before us that there was an express agreement Letween the parties. The uncontroverted evidence showed that there was not. In fact, General Motors notified plaintiffs in writing immediately upon submission •of the ideas that they were not interest-ed in purchasing them. There never was .a meeting of the minds on any contract.
The thrust of plaintiffs’ argument in “this Court was that defendant wrongfully appropriated their ideas and devices , .and should compensate them for the reasonable value thereof on the principles of •quasi contract. They assert that if giv