Section 6.7 Recovery Under Quantum Meruit

LibraryContracts 2016 Supp

D. (§6.7) Recovery Under Quantum Meruit

Recovery under quantum meruit gives the plaintiff the reasonable value of the goods and services provided to the defendant. See Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Midland Equities, Inc., 45 F. Supp. 2d 685, 693–94 (E.D. Mo. 1999); Cotner Prods., Inc. v. Snadon, 990 S.W.2d 92, 98 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999). As in an attempt to recover unjust enrichment, the three elements for the imposition of a quasi-contractual duty for recovery under quantum meruit are that:

the benefit is conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff;

the defendant appreciates or recognizes the conferring of the benefit; and

the defendant accepts and retains the benefit under circumstances in which retention is unjust without payment to the plaintiff.

Union Pac. R.R., 45 F. Supp. 2d at 693–94. Courts dealing with quantum meruit generally phrase the requirements as proof that the individual has retained a benefit conferred on the individual by another without paying for the reasonable value of the goods or services provided. Cotner Prods., 990 S.W.2d at 98; Landmark Sys., Inc. v. Delmar Redevelopment Corp., 900 S.W.2d 258, 262 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The reasonable value of a good or service is whatever price is “usually and customarily paid” in the relevant local market. Moran v. Hubbartt, 178 S.W.3d 604, 610 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (quoting Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Mid-W. Elecs., Inc., 49 S.W.3d 236, 247 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)). As noted in §6.6 above, the key difference between the remedies of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment is that quantum meruit allows the recovery of the reasonable value of the goods and services provided while unjust enrichment only allows the recovery of the amount of the benefit conferred on the defendant that it would be unjust for the defendant to retain.

Recovery under quantum meruit is not available if goods or services, when originally provided, were intended as a gift or were rendered without any expectation of payment. Davis v. Nelson, 880 S.W.2d 658 (Mo. App. E.D. 1984); State ex inf. Danforth v. Kansas City Firefighters Local No. 42, A.F.L.-C.I.O., 585 S.W.2d 94 (Mo. App. W.D. 1979). In Davis, the court ruled that the defendant could not make a counterclaim for landscaping done to a lot adjoining his property and the plaintiff’s property when it was originally done as a gift to thank the plaintiff for his efforts in a controversy involving both parties. Davis, 880 S.W.2d at 664–65. The court stated “that which was originally intended as...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT