Skip to main content
search

Quantum meruit

Definition

Latin for "as much as he has deserved."  An equitable remedy that provides restitution for unjust enrichment.  Damages awarded in an amount considered reasonable to compensate a person who has provided services in a quasi-contractual relationship.  See quasi-contract.

A claim in quantum meruit is usually an action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by one party to another.

Illustrative caselaw

See, e.g. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962).

See also

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

Latin for "as much as he deserved." A principle used to award the reasonable value of services performed by the victim of a broken contract.

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

August 19, 2010, 5:22 pm

 

Herbert Gaffey alleged (1) that he performed work for and provided materials to George Thompson and (2) that the reasonable value of the labor and materials was $115. In response, Thompson alleged that he and Gaffey had entered into an express contract in which he agreed to pay Gaffey $160 for labor and materials, but that Gaffey only partially performed the contract, supplied inferior quality materials, and caused $200 in damage to Thompson's property. Gaffey replied that he quit, because Thompson prevented him from completing the work. 

In this example, if Thompson wrongfully prevented Gaffey from completing the work, Gaffey would have a claim against Thompson under a quantum meruit theory, and Gaffey could recover the fair and reasonable value of the work that he was able to complete.

Thompson v. Gaffey, 52 Neb. 317 (Neb. 1897).

"Petitioner filed a complaint in the District Court alleging that, in exchange for petitioner's promise to care for and support her mother, petitioner's father had agreed not to make a will, thereby assuring petitioner of an intestate share of the father's estate; it was further alleged that petitioner had fully performed her obligations under the oral agreement, but that contrary thereto the father had devised his property to respondent, his second wife and executrix. Petitioner sought recovery of what would have been her intestate share of the father's estate. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the oral agreement was unenforceable under the applicable state statute of frauds. Accepting respondent's contention, the District Court entered judgment on December 19, 1960, dismissing petitioner's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted. On December 20, 1960, petitioner filed motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint to assert a right of recovery in quantum meruit for performance of the obligations which were the consideration for the assertedly unenforceable oral contract."

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962).

"[A]pplying New York law, we may analyze quantum meruit and unjust enrichment together as a single quasi contract claim."

"[T]o recover in quantum meruit under New York law, a claimant must establish (1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services."

"A claimant seeking relief under a theory of unjust enrichment in New York must demonstrate (1) that the defendant benefitted; (2) at the plaintiff's expense; and (3) that equity and good conscience require restitution.”

Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487, n.9, 509 (2d Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).