Skip to main content

Recent Developments: Proving Quantum Meruit/Fair and Reasonable Value

In a recent case in a New York appeals court, the plaintiff sued the defendants to recover money/payment for services he allegedly provided and for a judgment declaring that he was a member of a limited liability company (an LLC). It's not clear from the decision what these services were.

The case went through discovery (the exchange of information, documents, depositions, etc.) and all the way through a trial. There was a bench trial (a trial by a judge, no jury); the judge found in favor of the defendants and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiff appealed. 

First, the appeals court said the plaintiff had failed to show any evidence at trial that he was a member of the LLC--no operating agreement for the LLC, no list of members of the LLC, etc. 

The appeals court also said that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim for quantum meruit. Quantum meruit is called a "quasi contract" theory of recovery, meaning there was no written contract, but you provided services and expected payment as if there were a contract. The appeals court set out the elements of a quantum meruit claim:  (1) the performance of services in good faith; (2) the acceptance of the services by the other party; (3) an expectation of compensation for the services; and (4) proof of the reasonable value of the services.

The appeals court said:
The record is devoid of evidence which would establish the reasonable value of the services the plaintiff provided to the defendants. The plaintiff failed to testify as to the number of hours he expended, and no value was placed on his services on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis.
Ouch. So basically the plaintiff had no evidence of the value of his services or even how many hours he supposedly spent in rendering the services. 


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more