Quantum meruit

The term quantum meruit means that a party should be awarded as much as he had earned, and such an award can be either contractual or quasi-contractual  below, in nature. If the parties enter into a contractual agreement without determining the reward that is to be provided for performance, then, in the event of any dispute, the court will award a reasonable sum.

            Payment may also be claimed on the basis of quantum meruit where a party has carried out work in respect of a void contract and the other party has accepted that work.

            In Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd  the plaintiff had acted as the managing director of a company under a deed of contract. However, since he had not acquired any shares in the company, as required by its articles, his appointment was void. He sued to recover remuneration for the service he had provided prior to his removal. The court decided that, although he could not claim under contract, he was entitled to recover a reasonable sum on the basis of quantum meruit.

            Furthermore, where the defendant has prevented the claimant from completing performance, the claimant may be entitled to payment for work done so far. In Planche v Colburn  the plaintiff was under contract to write a book for the defendants, with payment to be made on completion of the manuscript. The defendants abandoned publication plans before the manuscript was completed; the plaintiff, having done some of the research for and writing of the manuscript, could claim for that work done.

QUASI-CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES

Quasi-contractual remedies are based on the assumption that a person should not receive any undue advantage from the fact that there is no contractual remedy to force them to account for it. An important quasi-contractual remedy is an action for money paid and received.

            If no contract comes into existence by reason of a total failure of consideration, then, under this action, any goods or money received will have to be returned to the party who supplied them.

            A case of particular interest is HM Attorney General v Blake Blake, j ailed for treason for spying for the Soviet Union, escaped and subsequently wrote his

autobiography. This was alleged to be a breach of his contract of employment with the British Intelligence Service and the Attorney General sought an injunction to prevent

the publishers from paying Blake £90,000 royalties on the book. The Court of Appeal granted the injunction on the ground that it was against public policy for a criminal to profit from his crime.

            The House of Lords did not uphold grant of the injunction as they could find no statutory or common law authority for such grant; accordingly, the money could be paid to Blake. However, Blake’s treachery made the case exceptional, allowing application of the principle of restitution to Blake’s breach of contract. Accordingly, the Attorney General was allowed an account of all profits resulting from the breach. Effectively, therefore, the Attorney General recovered the royalties from Blake.