Suit Upon Quantum Meruit (Sections 65 and 70)
The third remedy for a breach of contract available to an injured party against the guilty party is to file a suit upon quantum meruit. The phrase quantum meruit literally means “as much as is earned” or “in proportion to the work done.” A right to use upon quantum meruit usually arises where after part performance of the contract by one party, there is a breach of contract, or the contract is discovered void or becomes void. This remedy may be availed of either without claiming damages (i. e., claiming reason-able compensation only for the work done) or in addition to claiming damages for breach (i.e., claiming reasonable compensation for part performance and damages for the remaining unperformed part).
The aggrieved party may file a suit upon quantum meruit and may claim payment in proportion to work done or goods supplied in the following cases:
I. Where work has been done in pursuance of a contract, which has been discharged by the default of the defendant.
Illustrations
(a) P agreed to write a volume on ancient arm our to be published ,in a magazine owned by C. For this he was to receive $ 100 on completion. When he had completed part, but not the whole, of his volume, C abandoned the magazine. P was held entitled to get damages for breach of contract and payment quantum meruit for the part already completed (Planche vs Colburn).
(b) A, engages B, a contractor, to build a three storied house. After a part is constructed A prevents B from working any more. B, the contractor, is entitled to get reasonable compensation for work done under the doctrine of quantum meruit in addition. to the damages for breach of contract.
Notice that in both the above cases the contract was wrongfully terminated by the defendant, and both damages as well as payment quantum meruit have been allowed. It is important that in the case of a wrongful breach of contract the injured party can always claim payment quantum meruit, whether the contract is divisible or indivisible.
2. Where work has been done in pursuance of a contract which is discovered void’ or ‘becomes void,’ provided the contract is divisible.
Illustrations.
(a) C was appointed as managing director of a company by the board of directors under a written contract which provided for his remuneration. The contract was found void because the directors who constituted the ‘Board’ were not qualified to make the appointment. C nevertheless, purporting to act under the agreement, rendered services to the company and sued for the sums specified in the agreement, or, alternatively, for a reasonable, remuneration on a quantum meruit. Held, C could recover on a quantum meruit. (Craven-Ellis vs Canons Ltd. ).
(b) A contracts with B to repair his’ house at a piece rate. After a part of the repairs were carried out, the house is destroyed by lightning. Although the contract becomes void and stands discharged because of destruction of the house, A can claim payment for the work done on ‘quantum meruit’. Note that if under the contract a lump sum is to be paid for the repair job as a whole, then A cannot claim quantum meruit because no money is due till the whole job is done.
3. When a person enjoys benefit of non-gratuitous act although there exists no express agreement between the parties. One of such cases is provided in Section 70. Section 70 lays’ down that when services are rendered or goods are supplied by a person, (i) without any intention of doing so gratuitously, and (ii) the benefit of the same is enjoyed by the other party, the latter must compensate the former or restore the thing so delivered.
Illustrations
(a) A, a trader, leaves certain goods at B’s house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. He is bound to pay A for them. [Illustration (a) to Section 70]
(b) Where A ploughed the field of B with a tractor to the satisfaction of B in B’s presence, it was held that A was entitled to payment as the work was ‘not intended to be gratuitous and the other party has enjoyed the benefit of the same. (Ram Krishna vs Rangoobed).
4. A party who is guilty of breach of contract may also sue on a quantum meruit provided both the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) The contract must be divisible, and
(b) The other party must have enjoyed the benefit of the part which has been performed, although he had an option of declining it.
Illustrations
(a) Where a common carrier fails to take a complete consignment to the agreed destination, he may recover pro-rata freight. (He will, of course, be liable for breach of the contract.)
(b) S had agreed to erect upon H’s land two houses and stables for $ 565. S did part of the work and then abandoned the contract. H himself completed the buildings using some materials left on his land by S. In an action by S for the value of work done and of the materials used by H, it was held that S could recover the value of the materials (for H had the option to accept or to reject these) but he’ could not recover the value of the work done (for H had no option with regard to the partly erected building, but to accept that). The court observed, ‘“The mere fact that a defendant is in possession of what he cannot help keeping, or even has done work upon it, affords no ground for such an inference. He is not bound to keep unfinished a building which in an incomplete state would be a nuisance on his land.” (Sumpter vs Hedges).
The third remedy for a breach of contract available to an injured party against the guilty party is to file a suit upon quantum meruit. The phrase quantum meruit literally means “as much as is earned” or “in proportion to the work done.” A right to use upon quantum meruit usually arises where after part performance of the contract by one party, there is a breach of contract, or the contract is discovered void or becomes void. This remedy may be availed of either without claiming damages (i. e., claiming reason-able compensation only for the work done) or in addition to claiming damages for breach (i.e., claiming reasonable compensation for part performance and damages for the remaining unperformed part).
The aggrieved party may file a suit upon quantum meruit and may claim payment in proportion to work done or goods supplied in the following cases:
I. Where work has been done in pursuance of a contract, which has been discharged by the default of the defendant.
Illustrations
(a) P agreed to write a volume on ancient arm our to be published ,in a magazine owned by C. For this he was to receive $ 100 on completion. When he had completed part, but not the whole, of his volume, C abandoned the magazine. P was held entitled to get damages for breach of contract and payment quantum meruit for the part already completed (Planche vs Colburn).
(b) A, engages B, a contractor, to build a three storied house. After a part is constructed A prevents B from working any more. B, the contractor, is entitled to get reasonable compensation for work done under the doctrine of quantum meruit in addition. to the damages for breach of contract.
Notice that in both the above cases the contract was wrongfully terminated by the defendant, and both damages as well as payment quantum meruit have been allowed. It is important that in the case of a wrongful breach of contract the injured party can always claim payment quantum meruit, whether the contract is divisible or indivisible.
2. Where work has been done in pursuance of a contract which is discovered void’ or ‘becomes void,’ provided the contract is divisible.
Illustrations.
(a) C was appointed as managing director of a company by the board of directors under a written contract which provided for his remuneration. The contract was found void because the directors who constituted the ‘Board’ were not qualified to make the appointment. C nevertheless, purporting to act under the agreement, rendered services to the company and sued for the sums specified in the agreement, or, alternatively, for a reasonable, remuneration on a quantum meruit. Held, C could recover on a quantum meruit. (Craven-Ellis vs Canons Ltd. ).
(b) A contracts with B to repair his’ house at a piece rate. After a part of the repairs were carried out, the house is destroyed by lightning. Although the contract becomes void and stands discharged because of destruction of the house, A can claim payment for the work done on ‘quantum meruit’. Note that if under the contract a lump sum is to be paid for the repair job as a whole, then A cannot claim quantum meruit because no money is due till the whole job is done.
3. When a person enjoys benefit of non-gratuitous act although there exists no express agreement between the parties. One of such cases is provided in Section 70. Section 70 lays’ down that when services are rendered or goods are supplied by a person, (i) without any intention of doing so gratuitously, and (ii) the benefit of the same is enjoyed by the other party, the latter must compensate the former or restore the thing so delivered.
Illustrations
(a) A, a trader, leaves certain goods at B’s house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. He is bound to pay A for them. [Illustration (a) to Section 70]
(b) Where A ploughed the field of B with a tractor to the satisfaction of B in B’s presence, it was held that A was entitled to payment as the work was ‘not intended to be gratuitous and the other party has enjoyed the benefit of the same. (Ram Krishna vs Rangoobed).
4. A party who is guilty of breach of contract may also sue on a quantum meruit provided both the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) The contract must be divisible, and
(b) The other party must have enjoyed the benefit of the part which has been performed, although he had an option of declining it.
Illustrations
(a) Where a common carrier fails to take a complete consignment to the agreed destination, he may recover pro-rata freight. (He will, of course, be liable for breach of the contract.)
(b) S had agreed to erect upon H’s land two houses and stables for $ 565. S did part of the work and then abandoned the contract. H himself completed the buildings using some materials left on his land by S. In an action by S for the value of work done and of the materials used by H, it was held that S could recover the value of the materials (for H had the option to accept or to reject these) but he’ could not recover the value of the work done (for H had no option with regard to the partly erected building, but to accept that). The court observed, ‘“The mere fact that a defendant is in possession of what he cannot help keeping, or even has done work upon it, affords no ground for such an inference. He is not bound to keep unfinished a building which in an incomplete state would be a nuisance on his land.” (Sumpter vs Hedges).
Suit Upon Quantum Meruit
![Suit Upon Quantum Meruit]()
Reviewed by Hosne
on
10:01 AM
Rating:
