quantum meruit?

[jdkern]

What is the name of your state? New Jersey

Situation: We hired a contractor to put siding up on our house. The payments were in installments, 1 at contract signing, 1 at receipt of materials, and 1 at the end of the job. Payements number 1 and 2 were fine, but at the end of the job, the person collecting the money couldn't remember how much to ask us for, and we couldn't find the paperwork to figure it out. In order to ensure that we paid them what was due, we grossly overpaid the last installment, with the collector telling us that when they got back to the office, they'd refund the difference. We found the paperwork later that day, and called to see when we'd get paid. They said "a few weeks." We waited. No check. We called. No return calls. This went on for months. Knowing that this would end badly, we sent two certified letters a month apart, and received no response. I filed the claim.

It seems to me that the issue is pretty straightforward. The contract is not an estimate, and is labeled "contract." We both signed it. When telling my story to a friend, however, he mentioned that any little bit of extra work that the contractor may have done might be claimed as work he wasn't paid for. We didn't ask for anything extra to be done, but I could see the contractors claiming that they did something for the money. I've seen references in my research on the issue to a theory of "quantum meruit." While I understand the theory, can it be used against me if I didn't ask for anything to be done? How do I prove we didn't agree on anything other than what was in the contract?

Any insight would be very appreciated.

Regards,

jerryWhat is the name of your state?

 

[CALIF-LAWPRO62]

What is the name of your state? New Jersey

Situation: We hired a contractor to put siding up on our house. The payments were in installments, 1 at contract signing, 1 at receipt of materials, and 1 at the end of the job. Payements number 1 and 2 were fine, but at the end of the job, the person collecting the money couldn't remember how much to ask us for, and we couldn't find the paperwork to figure it out. In order to ensure that we paid them what was due, we grossly overpaid the last installment, with the collector telling us that when they got back to the office, they'd refund the difference. We found the paperwork later that day, and called to see when we'd get paid. They said "a few weeks." We waited. No check. We called. No return calls. This went on for months. Knowing that this would end badly, we sent two certified letters a month apart, and received no response. I filed the claim.

It seems to me that the issue is pretty straightforward. The contract is not an estimate, and is labeled "contract." We both signed it. When telling my story to a friend, however, he mentioned that any little bit of extra work that the contractor may have done might be claimed as work he wasn't paid for. We didn't ask for anything extra to be done, but I could see the contractors claiming that they did something for the money. I've seen references in my research on the issue to a theory of "quantum meruit." While I understand the theory, can it be used against me if I didn't ask for anything to be done? How do I prove we didn't agree on anything other than what was in the contract?

Any insight would be very appreciated.

Regards,

jerryWhat is the name of your state?

My response:

Your friend, and you, are misconstruing "quantum meruit" - the "reasonable value" of services.

In your case, you had a written contract. Any "added work" must be placed in the contract; i.e., reduced to writing. Since there was a written contract, a judge will only look within the four corners of that contract. Verbal promises or witnesses to the extra work will not be admitted into evidence because that becomes "parole evidence" - - indicia of work performed "outside" the four corners of the written contract.

If the contractor wanted to be paid for any extra work, the judge will decide that it would have been an easy matter to negotiate the same, and place such work and materials in the contract as a signed addendum. It could be stated, therefore, that the contractor "gave" that extra work as a "goodwill" gesture for a good customer, and for customer relations.

Summary, if it wasn't in the written contract, it's not compenseable.

IAAL

 

[jdkern]

Thanks for the quick response. Its after midnight in California, get some sleep. I should be the only one freaking out, unable to sleep at 3:45 in New Jersey!

 

[tranquility]

Quantum Meruit is the reasonable value of services. If there was work being done for you, and you knew about it and didn't stop it, you would be responsible for the reasonable value of the work--even if you did not have a contract. Not contracted value, reasonable value.

Parole evidence has to do with *prior* or *contemporaneous* events and not with *subsequent* events. If you had a written contract and later told the contractor to add Redding pipe (the finest pipe in the land) to the bathroom rather than the cheaper Acme pipe, he could bring in evidence of the modification even if it was a verbal modification. However, this general rule can be modified in your original contact by having a clause that states all modifications must be in writing to be valid.

Bottom line? Since you gave up the money, you would have to sue to get it back. Normally, he would have to sue to get it from you, but now the positions have changed. How much are you talking about? Can you prove there was no modification? Can you counter his claim he did uncontracted work you knew about but didn't pay for?

 

[jdkern]

I'm not sure how I would prove there was *no* modification. How do you prove something doesn't exist? I'm not even sure he actually did anything other than the contracted work. I'm just working off of a cautionary tale from a friend. I've looked around the house, and I don't see that any extra work was done, but with the rates he charges, even the smallest bit of work would justify the extra money.

 

[jdkern]

I'm hanging my hat on this clause included in the contract:

"Verbal Understandings/Agreements With Representatives Shall Not Be Binding, Unless Set Forth In Writing, In This Contract."