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

Insurance Companies Trying to Gag Superstorm Sandy Victims?

As reported in several news articles ( this one  is free), in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, engineering firms were hired by insurance companies to inspect the homes of people making claims for flood damage.  There have been allegations that two of the engineering firms, U.S. Forensic out of Louisiana, and GEB HiRise out of Uniondale, forged property damage reports in order to deny claims. The NY State Attorney General is investigating those allegations and wants to talk to the homeowners.  At the same time, there are about 1,800 lawsuits in federal court involving the insurance coverage claims. A three-judge panel is trying to expedite resolution of the cases.  Last week it was revealed that one of the insurance companies, The Standard Fire Insurance Company, which is a subsidiary of Travelers Insurance, drafted language in a settlement document saying that any homeowner who accepts a payout of their claims cannot cooperate with the criminal invest...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Court Finds Breach of Contract of Oral Agreement/Loan

In November, 2014, plaintiff and defendant agreed that the plaintiff would loan the defendant $200,000, and the defendant would pay him back in 4 installments of $50,000 over the next year. The defendant made the first 3 payments (totaling $150,000), but not the last payment. The plaintiff then sued for breach of contract for the remaining $50,000. There was nothing in writing, just an oral agreement. It appears that as soon as the defendant served his "Answer" to the "Complaint", the plaintiff moved for summary judgment (a kind of mini-trial on paper). The evidence included the cancelled check for $200,000 and the records of payments totaling $150,000. The appeals court held that, although there was nothing in writing, the oral agreement was enforceable as a contract and held that the plaintiff had proven his breach of contract claim.  The defendant had argued it was too early in the case to decide such a motion, that more evidence needed to be gathered (called...
Post a Comment
Read more