QUANTUM MERUIT: TWO DISTINCT CAUSES OF ACTION, NOT MERELY A MEASURE OF DAMAGES

Abstract

Like clockwork, those representing contractors routinely include a claim for recovery based on quantum meruit. Notwithstanding the regularity with which it is pleaded, there is confusion in the Construction Bar as to what must be proven in order to recover on a quantum meruit claim. This paper will endeavor to explain that there are actually two different species of quantum meruit, each with its own distinct required elements of proof and the proper measure of damages recoverable under each. This paper also will endeavor to establish that quantum meruit, whether implied-in-law or implied-in-fact, is a separate cause of action, not merely a measure of damages for breach of contracts.

1. The Two Types Of Quantum Meruit Claims
1. Introduction
2. Texas Law Recognizes Two Types Of Quantum Meruit.
2. Damages Under Each Quantum Meruit Theory
1. General
2. Measure Of Damages For Implied-In-Law Quantum Meruit
3. Measure Of Damages For Implied-In-Fact Quantum Meruit
3. Quantum Meruit Is A Distinct Cause Of Action, Not Merely A Measure Of Damages
4. May A Subcontractor Sue An Owner Based On Quantum Meruit?

Full Text

This paper is available as a benefit of membership to Construction Law Section members. If you are already a member, just use one of the links above and enter your username and password when prompted. Here's how to join Construction Law Section and gain access to this material.

You must have the free Adobe Acrobat Reader 4.0 (or greater) installed in your computer in order to view or print this paper. It is available as free download from the Adobe Web site. If you do not have Acrobat Reader installed, click the link to the left to download it. If menu window opens before the paper, choose the "View" option.