Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Account Stated Alt Quantum M'.
Quantum Meriut lawsuits were usually an old common law concept, for states still allowing its use, based on Contractors and suppliers or Contractors and Sub-contractors disputes. Suppliers usually had long term on-going accounts. I have responded to requests for information a couple of Oregon posters have inquired about regarding lawsuits containing counts for Breach of Contract or in the alternative Quantum Meriut. Usually there is a corresponding count in the Plaintiff's contentions for account stated. Unjust enrichment for the Defendant for receiving the materials and not paying the bill. There is tons of case law regards Quantum Meriut but mostly in favor of the Plaintiff. Most recently attorneys seem to be getting into the foray with QM suits in the alternative for their attorney fee's and are winning. (What other lawyer Judge would deprive another lawyer of his precious fees). Need some winning case law from the West Coast or 9th District and especially some well grounded ideas on winning defenses or success stories. The major local player seems to again be Midland Funding. Discussions welcome!! see the Texas equivalent: (Wish Oregon of California had something like this) ELEMENTS OF QUANTUM MERUIT CLAIM UNDER TEXAS COMMON LAW “To recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must establish that:1) valuable services and/or materials were furnished,2) to the party sought to be charged,3) which were accepted by the party sought to be charged, and4) under such circumstances as reasonably notified the recipient that the plaintiff, in performing, expected to be paid by the recipient.” Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992); Vortt Exploration Co., 787 S.W.2d at 944; Speck v. First Evangelical Lutheran Church of Houston, 235 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). SOURCE: Doyle v. Heilman, 01-09-00164-CV (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 11, 2010) (judgment on quantum meruit claim for personal care services reversed, essential element of notice that Plaintiff expected to be paid for services rendered not shown, not satisfied) HP