QUANTUM MERUIT

The term Quantum meruit literally means as much as he has earned; a reasonable amount. An action upon quantum meruit arises where some work has done or service has rendered or has incurred some expenses by one for another in such circumstances entitling the former to receive a reasonable remuneration therefor. It is used where the plaintiff claims not a precise sum but reasonable remuneration of his services, when there is no enforceable contact or express promise as to the amount of remuneration of work done or service rendered. Claims on a quantum meruit may be contractual or quasi contractual. When a person has done some work under a contract, and the other party repudiates the contract, or some event happens which makes the further performance of the contract impossible, then the party who has performed the work can claim remuneration for the work he has already done. The claim for quantum meruit arises only when the original contract is discharged, and hence, the party not in default cannot claim upon quantum meruit till the original contract exists. Further, the claim for quantum meruit can be brought only by the party who is not in default.

TYPES/ CASES OF QUANTUM MERUIT

An action upon quantum meruit arises in the following cases:

1. Where there is no contract:

Where a person has done some works or rendered services without contract express or implied, he can recover a reasonable remuneration of his service provided he had done such works or rendered services without to do so gratuitously.

2. Where there is a contract for work or service but no agreement as to the payment: Where there is an express contract for an act or service but no agreement as to remuneration this does not imply that receiver of benefit by such act or service under no obligation to pay for those works or service.

3. Where the agreement is discovered to be void: When a contract becomes void or discovered to be void, any person who has received any benefit under such agreement or contract is bound to pay for those benefit to the person from whom he received it.

4. Where a contract is divisible:

Where a contract is construed not as an entire contract but as a divisible one and the party not in default has right to recover a reasonable remuneration of the part performance. Important points to be noted that the action of this categories fall where the contract is divisible in nature and the party claiming on this must not be the party in default. For example, contract was entered into between A and B to supply to 100 tons of Rs. 10 Lakh within a certain date. After making delivery of 3 tons A refuses to supply the remainings. A cannot sue B for the price. But, where the contract was construed as A shall supply 100 tons of rise at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per ton within a fixed time and refused to supply after the delivery of 3 tons, he can claim for the price of 3 tons of rice already delivered.

5. Where the completion of contract has been prevented by the act of the other party than the party claiming for the price: Where a contract is indivisible in nature, no party is entitled for benefit until the contract is fully performed. But where the completion of contract by one has been prevented by the act of another, the party performing his obligation though not completed or fully performed, shall have right to recover the reasonable remuneration of to his service or price of goods so supplied. In other words, the party claiming for the price must not be the party of default of performance.

6. Where a contract is discharged by breach: The party not in default may sue on quantum meruit for the value of the work he has done under the contract or as an alternative remedy of damages.

7. Where a contract is fully performed but not exactly: When an indivisible contract is completely perform but the performance is deviated from the way an manner of performance as agreed by the parties, the person who has performed the contract can claim the amount agreed provided the other party can make a deduction for bad work. The company agreed to repair Lee’s house for £ 265 payable on the completion of the work in accordance with a specification agreed between them. He did the repairs but these were defective, therefore, Lee refused to make the payment. It was held that the company was entitled to recovered the amount agreed less a reduction in respect of the defective work.