Talk:Quantum meruit

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wrong wrong wrong

This article says this is contract law. That is wrong wrong wrong. This is the court of equity. It has nothing to do with contracts. Contracts are common law. However where there is bad faith, misrepresentation, duress etc. then the contract can be made void. Because the contract never existed it does not fit under contract law any more. It would be unjust to deal with analyzing the "contract" when in all fairness the contract does not exist. Thus both a void contract and no contract are not covered by contract law, the court of equity takes over and tries to figure out what would be just. Under contract law the court assists in figuring out the wording to get at the result agreed to. Quantum Meruit deals with when there is no contract and determines what is merited. Strider22 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Example

Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".

The first example suggests that any action that creates a positive externality should be compensable via the theory of quantum meruit. That doesn't really make sense to me. To take an example from Externality, if I plant a nice garden in front of my house, the neighbors shouldn't have to pay me for the benefit of being able to look at it, should they? 69.231.217.213 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but maybe not for the reason you think. I'm not sure planting a nice garden confers a benefit in law on your neighbours. The area of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment seems to be fairly new (at least in law terms), though it's fairly well developed in Australia. There seem to have been two schools of thought as to how the right arises. One is that the quantum meruit is actually an implied contract, either implied by the facts or implied by law. The other was that quantum meruit was a remedy outside of contract, purely in the realm of unjust enrichment, which arises where a contract does not exist or is defective. The second was accepted in Pavey & Matthews v Paul. One element of unjust enrichment is the acceptance of the benefit, and that the enrichment thereby is unjust. I think the bar is a bit higher than simply creating a positive externality in an economic sense. --202.73.206.161 04:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this even differs from an externality. The example given above, where someone plants a garden and the neighbor gets the benefit of looking at it, is distinctly different from the wall example. What if, as a result of the wall being built, the neighbor's property value increases? Without quantum meruit, he's become a free rider, getting something for nothing. If I plant a flower garden, you're not going to gain a financial benefit from it. Unjust enrichment applies when someone gets a financial benefit that they did not rightly deserve, not just when they get to look at something pretty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.2.165 (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Create a page Legal Latin and put all these phrases that are lame on their own in one place, with redirects. That's what I say... Wetman 01:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree--Example I is a bit broad and doesn't quite capture the concept. I don't think many courts would grant recovery to the man who built the fence, without more of an implied obligation. The example presupposes that the neighbor would consider the fence a benefit but this may not be true.

I'm no lawyer, but according to the following Web site, quantum meruit requires that "the defendant was aware that the plaintiff . . . expected to be paid . . ." The way the wall example is described in the article, this requirement does not seem to hold, as the wall-builder did not mention in the conversation that he expected to be paid. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

/Quantum+meruit Norman314 (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the example is very bad, the neighbor must have given a definite acceptance. Qunatum meriut is often use as a "measure of damages" bit as "contract creation". I will makes changes to the example.--Hq3473 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court of Equity

This article appears to completely miss the point.

There is statue law and common law. Statute law is decreed by the ruling authority (king, parliament, congress). Common law is the body of court cases that refine the meaning of statue law. Common law can create law through successive cases. However, long ago, common law and statue law were recognized to leave gaps. Where the gap was unaddressed by the law and left an inequitable event, the court of equity could rule to ensure justice. It is an ancient court not a new arrival. I think it comes from appeals to the king.

Quantum Meruit is a remedy not a law. Where one person is unjustly enriched by the actions of another there needs to be a remedy. If there is no remedy in law then the unjust enrichment can be corrected by remedy of Quantum Meruit. In other words this court does the "right thing". The court of equity is a concept that in a way exists outside of common law but it can also be seen as a safety net that exists underlying common law.

In most of the Quantum Meruit articles I have read, there is no mention of the concept of "clean hands". You do not deserve an equitable solution if you are also in the wrong. That is if there are two parties say one who was a tradesperson and did carpentry work on his neighbours house without a contract and the neighbour tried to stiff him out of the bill, the carpenter could sue for a remedy. If the carpenter stole the neighbours truck as compensation then the court of equity could not be invoked. The carpenter has dirty hands.

Also as to the value of the compensation; If the carpenter performed $3,000 worth of labour that would ordinarily be billed at $4,000 and created a $2,000 increase in the value of the neighbours home, the likely award would be for $2,000 as that was the value of the unjust enrichment. Another judge however could decide that the $3,000 worth of labour was the true benefit. I don't envision any judge awarding the retail value. Under contract law the $4,000 retail value would be most likely.

Strider22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Canada

The paragraph that begins "In Canada..." seems out of place in the "Examples" section. I'm moving it to earlier in the article, but anyone who thinks it would be better elsewhere should feel free to relocate it. --Shadow (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer examination, the second half of that paragraph relates directly to the example in the paragraph immediately before it. I'm too much of a Wiki-novice to figure out what to do with that so I've left it alone, but I still think the general "In Canada..." stuff probably ought to follow immediately after the paragraph that begins "In the United States..." --Shadow (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]