QUANTUM MERUIT

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "The term, quantum meruit is at common law used in various senses inclusive of a claim for a reasonable price, remuneration or compensation implied in a contract where no remuneration or price was fixed for the work done or for a breach of contract for reasonable remuneration for work done. Claims for a quantum meruit in respect of work done under an unenforceable, void or illegal contract are properly regarded as quasi-contractual. Accordingly, in a contract for work done or services rendered, where no scale of remuneration is fixed or agreed upon, the law imposes an obligation to pay a reasonable sum on the basis of quantum meruit. See: Way v. Latilla (1937) 3 All E.R. 759 H.L. and William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd. v. Davis (1957) 1 W.L.R. 932." - Per Iguh, J.S.C., in Alfotrin Ltd. v. A.-G., Fed. Suit No. S.C. 126/1989; (1996) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.475) 634 at 659.

(2) "One other point of importance is that even if the issue of quantum meruit arose at all at the trial in this matter, it cannot succeed in the circumstances of this case. For, it would be inconsistent with the terms of the contract relied on by the plaintiff Exhibit ‘B’. No claim on quantum meruit can succeed if it is inconsistent with the terms of the contract, between the parties, so the authorities show- See: Chitty on Contract 21st Edition Vol.1 page 257. The principles in reverse is that where there is no express contract but work has been done or services accepted an action or claim of quantum meruit will lie. Surely the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant in this matter does not qualify for consideration of the claim of plaintiff for quantum meruit by virtue of Exhibit ‘B’." - Per Nzeako, J.C.A., in D.P.M.S. Ltd. v. Larmie Suit No. CA/L/441/97; (2000) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 655) 138 at 158.

(3) "Quantum meruit, according to Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract 13th Edition, connotes a situation where a plaintiff seeks not a precise sum alleged to be due to him but a reasonable remuneration for services rendered. The plaintiff may seek redress in terms of recovery of reasonable remuneration for work done in pursuance of a contract which has been discharged by the default of the defendant. But if a plaintiff has entered into an agreement to do work for the defendant in return for a specified sum of money and now sues on a quantum meruit for extra work done, he must first satisfy the Court that the original agreement has been discharged. He must be seen to have performed the old contract before he can rightly claim for the new or extra work done by the default of the other party. see Gilbert & Partners v. Knight (1968) 2 All E.R 248." - Per Aderemi, J.C.A., in D.P.M.S. Ltd. v. Larmie Suit No. CA/L/441/97; (2000) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 655) 138 at 151.

(4) "The learned author of Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th edition) in Vol. 9 at paragraph 692 - 693 defines the term and lists the categories of quantum meruit. "692. Meaning of quantum meruit...