Quantum Meruit - How to defend against.

[Huey Pilot]

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, and

4) 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

[BV80]

@Huey Pilot

 

A claim for quantum meruit is a quasi-contractual claim. Robinowitz v. Pozzi, 127 Or.App. 464, 467, 872 P.2d 993, rev. den., 320 Or. 109, 881 P.2d 141 (1994).


The elements of a quasi contract are a benefit conferred, awareness by the recipient that a benefit has been received and, under the circumstances, it would be unjust to allow retention of the benefit without requiring the recipient to pay for it. See 3 Corbin, Contracts § 561 (1963 and Supp. 1992). For an injustice to be found, one of three things must be true:

    "(i) the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of payment;

    "(2) the defendant should reasonably have expected to pay; or

    "(3) society's reasonable expectations of security of person and property would be defeated by nonpayment."  Jaqua v. Nike, Inc., 125 Or.App. 294, 298, 865 P.2d 442 (1993).

 

Recovery in quantum meruit is based on the value of the benefit rendered.  Hershiser v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, 276 Or. 815, 821, 556 P.2d 663 (1976).

 

 

I would think that based upon the above, the JDB would have to prove that they rendered a service and the value of that service.

 

You need to see if you can locate the following case. 

 

"No man can make another his debtor against his will; as, if a man pay my debt without my request, I am not bound to repay him." Rohr v. Baker, 13 Or. 350, 351, 10 P. 627 (1886).

 

It might be argued that JDBs pay debts without the request of the debtors.

[nascar]

Consider this . . . in the context of a debt buyer filing suit based on quantum meruit . . .

 

Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy, meaning no remedy at law exists. If a debt collector takes the position that they're entitled to relief in equity, they must also concede that no contract exists under which they can recover.

 

A credit card agreement, whether in writing or not, is a contract between the consumer and the creditor. When a debt collector like Midland claims to have purchased your "account," they're also claiming that they're an assignee of the contract between you and your creditor. 

 

If there is no contract, there cannot be an assignment of a contract. Therefore, a debt buyer like Midland cannot both argue that their rights to collect arise out of an assignment of the account (contract) between consumer and creditor, while simultaneously claiming that no contract exists. 

 

 

Quasi-contract remedies are equitable remedies that permit recovery, "where, in fact, there is no contract, but where circumstances are such that justice warrants a recovery as though there had been a promise." County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc., 358 Md. 83, 94, 747 A.2d 600 (2000). PMEI is correct that, "no quasi-contractual claim can arise when a contract exists between the parties concerning the same subject matter on which the quasi-contractual claim rests...." J. Roland Dashiell, 358 Md. at 96, 747 A.2d 600, citing Mass Transit Admin. v. Granite Constr. Co., 57 Md. App. 766, 776, 471 A.2d 1121 (1984). Swedish Civil Aviation v. PROJECT MANAGEMT. ENTER., 190 F. Supp. 2d 785 (D. Md. 2002)

 

[BV80]

@nascar

 

Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy, meaning no remedy at law exists.

 

Is that what the following means?  Since there's no contract, then relief is based upon the value of the service?

 

Recovery in quantum meruit is based on the value of the benefit rendered.  Hershiser v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, 276 Or. 815, 821, 556 P.2d 663 (1976).

[nascar]

\\

 

Is that what the following means?  Since there's no contract, then relief is based upon the value of the service?

 

Recovery in quantum meruit is based on the value of the benefit rendered.  Hershiser v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, 276 Or. 815, 821, 556 P.2d 663 (1976).

 

 

Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy which does not arise out of a contract, but is independent of it. Colbert v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank, 129 Tex. 235, 102 S.W.2d 1031, 1034 (1937). Generally, a party may recover under quantum meruit only when there is no express contract covering the services or materials furnished. Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex.1988).