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

Know Your Rights: New York's Consumer Protection Statute

Under New York law, there are several ways that consumers can recover damages (money) or other relief against businesses that ripped them off, deceived them, or otherwise treated them improperly. One of these ways is New York's Consumer Protection Statute (General Business Law § 349). Under GBL §349, a consumer can sue a business if he or she can show that the subject act or practice (1) was consumer-oriented; (2) was misleading in a material way; and (3) the consumer suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act. If successful, a consumer can recover their actual damages (money they lost), their reasonable attorney fees, and "treble" (triple) damages up to $1,000 (if the business acted willfully and knowingly in deceiving the consumer). The $1,000 cap on treble damages needs to be eliminated. It is no deterrent to businesses behaving badly. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Cases: Appeals Court Reverses Lower Court in Slip and Fall

In a decision issued on March 18, 2015 , a New York appeals court reversed a lower court decision dismissing a slip and fall case. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old boy. He was injured when he slipped and fell on "loose and broken pieces of asphalt" as he was running towards an ice cream truck near an Ikea store in Brooklyn. There were two interesting things about the decision. First, like many slip and fall cases, the case turned on constructive notice--how long was the loose/broken asphalt on the ground before the accident so that the defendants should have seen it and corrected the dangerous condition? The appeals court said the defendants failed to show when they last cleaned or inspected the area, so they did not establish lack of constructive notice. The more interesting thing is that apparently the boy told staff at the hospital where he was taken that he tripped over his shoelaces. The defendants found this in the hospital records and basically said, "Ha! He di...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Developments: Lawsuit Against School District for a Bus Monitor Abusing a Special Needs Child

The parents of a child "who suffers from severe mental disabilities" sued the Beacon City School District, in Dutchess County, alleging that a bus monitor physically and mentally abused their child. The parents sued the School District for, among other things, assault, battery, and negligent supervision. The case went through the fact-finding phase (called "discovery"), and the School District made a motion to dismiss at least some of the claims. The motion was granted, but an appeals court reversed the lower court.  The appeals court first noted that  [s]chools have a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, and may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision and  [t]he standard for determining whether the school has breached its duty is to compare the school's supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same...
Post a Comment
Read more