Q.
What is Quantum Meruit, and what case law could you quote for Quantum Meruit?
A.
Read more about Quantum Meruit from Wikipedia here and below.
Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".
Quantum meruit is the measure of damages where an express contract is mutually modified by the implied agreement of the parties, or not completed. While there is often confusion between the concept of quantum meruit and that of "unjust enrichment" of one party at the expense of another, the two concepts are distinct.
The concept of quantum meruit applies in (but is not limited to) the following situations:
I. When a person hires another to do work for him, and the contract is either not completed or is otherwise rendered unperformable, the person performing may sue for the value of the improvements made or the services rendered to the defendant. The law implies a promise from the employer to the workman that he will pay him for his services, as much as he may deserve or merit.
The measure of value set forth in a contract may be submitted to the court as evidence of the value of the improvements or services, but the court is NOT required to use the contract's terms when calculating a quantum meruit award. (This is because the values set forth in the contract are rebuttable, meaning the one who ultimately may have to pay the award can contest the value of services set in the contract.)
II. When there is an express contract for a stipulated amount and mode of compensation for services, the plaintiff cannot abandon the contract and resort to an action for a quantum meruit on an implied assumpsit. However, if there is a total failure of consideration, the plaintiff has a right to elect to repudiate the contract and may then seek compensation on a quantum meruit basis.
-Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_meruit
Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract and restitution for unjust enrichment.
It was a matter where the plaintiff was contracted to erect certain buildings on the grounds of the defendant for a lump sum of 565 pounds, but the plaintiff was only able to do part of the work to a value of 333 pounds, with the defendant subsequently completing the rest of the work. As a result, the plaintiff sued on quantum meruit (as much as he or she has earned) appealing from the judgment of the trial judge who awarded the plaintiff for the value of the materials used, but nothing in respect to the work done.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision and held that the plaintiff could not recover from the defendant in respect to the work done as part of quantum meruit due to the fact that the contract was for a lump sum, and there was no evidence that an agreement for part performance was formed.
As a result of the decision in Sumpter and other similar decisions, the common law had subsequently recognised some exceptions to the general rule other than that performance of a contract must be exact and complete according to the terms, with the exceptions being:
- substantial performance;
- acceptance of partial performance;
- divisible contracts;
- the law does not concern itself with trivialities (de minimis non curat lex);
- the performance of the contract has been obstructed;
- time for performance
How can contracts be discharged from further performance? Find Law Australia, available at
http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4551/how-can-contracts-be-discharged-from-further-perfo.aspx
Sumpter v Hedges - Wikipedia at,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumpter_v_Hedges
Quantum Meruit, search from Wikipedia at,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_meruit