Sometimes there is no specific contract or agreement for work one party performs for another.  Under general contract of law principals, courts may award quantum meruit damages—a reasonable sum of money to be paid for services rendered or work done when the amount due is not stipulated in a legally enforceable contract.

In New York-Connecticut Development Corp. v. Blinds-To-Go (U.S.) Inc., Blinds-To-Go hired a NYCT, as general contractor to build its corporate headquarters pursuant to a comprehensive construction contract.

On March 6, 2012 NYCT contractor presented its eleventh requisition for payment.  Blinds-To-Go advised it would pay the requisition upon receipt of the certificate of occupancy, the release of liens, and the completion of the punch list.  In response, the NYCT informed Blinds-To-Go it would not return to the job site.  Blinds-To-Go paid the eleventh requisition after it received the certificate of occupancy, but NYCT did no further work and failed to complete the punch list.  Soon thereafter, NYCT submitted a final requisition containing seventeen additional unapproved change orders with charges in excess of $1,000,000.

NYCT sued alleging breach of contract or, in the alternative, a claim for quantum meruit.  Throughout the trial and at the time of the jury charge conference, the parties had been in agreement that there was an express contract governing the construction project.  However, the trial judge allowed the jury to consider awarding the equitable remedy of quantum meruit damages in the event it found that NYCT breached its contractual obligations and thus not be entitled to recover breach of contract damages.

The jury did find that NYCT breached various contractual duties, but it also awarded quantum meruit damages.  In New Jersey, it has long been established that the existence of an express contract precludes the award of damages under the equitable remedy of quantum meruit.  While a party may plead inconsistent alternative theories of liability, a party may not recover on inconsistent theories.  Once the jury found that there was an enforceable contract, NYCT was not entitled to recover damages under quantum meruit.  Accordingly, the verdict was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Thanks to Michael Noblett for his contribution to this post.