Quasi Contracts: Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit and Restitution PDF

**QUASI CONTRACTS: UNJUST ENRICHMENT, QUANTUM MERUIT, RESTITUTION 10/2/2024** **WHAT IS A QUASI CONTRACT** A quasi contract, also known as an implied in law or constructive contract, is a legal obligation that\'s imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. It\'s a retroactive judgment that forces...

**QUASI CONTRACTS: UNJUST ENRICHMENT, QUANTUM MERUIT, RESTITUTION 10/2/2024** **WHAT IS A QUASI CONTRACT** A quasi contract, also known as an implied in law or constructive contract, is a legal obligation that\'s imposed by law to prevent unjust enrichment. It\'s a retroactive judgment that forces one party to compensate another for something they received at the expense of the other party.  Here are some things to know about quasi contracts:  - When a quasi-contract is used A quasi contract is used when there isn\'t a true contract, but a court presumes one is needed. It\'s not used when there\'s already a contract that covers the same subject matter.  - How a quasi-contract is enforced When a party sues for damages under a quasi-contract, the remedy is usually restitution or recovery under quantum meruit.  - How a quasi contract is determined A court determines liability on a case-by-case basis.  - **How a quasi-contract is different from an implied in fact contract** An implied in fact contract is based on the conduct of the parties, while a quasi contract is not.  - **How a quasi-contract is different from an express contract** An express contract is based on the terms explicitly defined in the contract, while a quasi-contract is not.  **WHAT IS "UNJUST ENRICHMENT"** The definition of unjust enrichment is "The retention of a benefit conferred by another, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected."^1^ Under unjust enrichment, the defendant (owner) unjustly receives and retains something of value at the plaintiff\'s (contractor\'s) expense. **MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT:** Compensation is reasonably expected for unjust enrichment when the circumstances show that the parties intended the owner to pay the contractor. This can be determined by looking at the intent and understanding of the parties, or by what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. If the reasonable expectation of compensation cannot be proven, the work may be considered gratuitous.  Unjust enrichment is an equitable doctrine that occurs when one party receives a benefit at the expense of another. The law requires the party who was unjustly enriched to pay compensation to the other party to offset the enrichment.  To recover on a claim of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant: - Received a benefit - Knew of the benefit and should have reasonably expected to repay the plaintiff - Accepted or retained the benefit without paying for its value  Unjust enrichment is different from a gift, which is given without the expectation of receiving something in return. **WHAT IS QUANTUM MERUIT** Quantum meruit is a legal doctrine in contract law that allows a person to receive compensation for services rendered, even if there was no contract or the contract did not specify compensation. The term is Latin for \"as much as one has deserved\" or \"what one has earned\".  Quantum meruit is often used in situations where:  - There was an implied agreement  - A contract was partially performed  - There was no contract, or the contract is void  To establish a quantum meruit claim, the claimant must usually show that:  - The defendant requested or accepted the services  - The claimant performed the services in good faith  - The claimant expected compensation  The amount of compensation awarded is usually based on the market value of the services.  The focus is on the value of services provided and NOT on the benefit to the party who requested the services and should pay for the market value of the services. **Quantum Meruit vs. Unjust Enrichment Claims: The Difference You Need to Know** When comparing quantum meruit vs. unjust enrichment claims, it's important to understand the differences in intent and elements. A quantum meruit claim is the recovery of the fair value or sum due for services provided without a price agreement. In contrast, an unjust enrichment claim focuses on the recipient's unfair benefits.  An unjust enrichment claim seeks to resolve agreements in which one party profits at the expense of another. Meanwhile, quantum meruit is about getting a fair price for services. Hence, on many occasions, a quantum meruit is used to prevent unjust enrichment. - [Quantum Meruit Claims](https://bowen-law.com/difference-between-quantum-meruit-and-unjust-enrichment/#a1) - [When Can You File for a Quantum Meruit Claim?](https://bowen-law.com/difference-between-quantum-meruit-and-unjust-enrichment/#a2) - [How to Prove Quantum Meruit Claims](https://bowen-law.com/difference-between-quantum-meruit-and-unjust-enrichment/#a3) - [Unjust Enrichment](https://bowen-law.com/difference-between-quantum-meruit-and-unjust-enrichment/#a8) - [When Can You File for an Unjust Enrichment Claim?](https://bowen-law.com/difference-between-quantum-meruit-and-unjust-enrichment/#a9) - [How to Prove Unjust Enrichment Claims](https://bowen-law.com/difference-between-quantum-meruit-and-unjust-enrichment/#a10) Quantum Meruit Claims  What is quantum meruit? A [quantum meruit](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quantum_meruit#:~:text=Damages%20awarded%20in%20an%20amount,by%20one%20party%20to%20another.) is a legal claim when a party demands reasonable compensation for a service rendered. It's filed when both parties have not agreed upon the value or cost of service, to which then the court will determine the fair market value of the services. Generally, a quantum meruit claim can protect both the worker and the recipient of the service. For the worker, a quantum meruit claim sets the reasonable value for their services. Additionally, it protects the recipient from paying more than the fair market value of the services.  When Can You File for a Quantum Meruit Claim? You may file a quantum meruit claim when: - Both parties agree to a "quasi-contract" or an implied agreement or contract.  - If both parties agree that compensation is to be made for the service, but with no specific amount. - The service was rendered even if the contract was terminated, void, or otherwise unenforceable because of events like fraud or death. How to Prove Quantum Meruit Claims To ensure the success of your quantum meruit claim, you [need to prove 4 essential elements:](https://law.jrank.org/pages/9598/Quantum-Meruit.html) Services were valuable Your responsibility as the plaintiff is to demonstrate the worth and benefit of the service provided. The service's overall quality and commercial value are considered for the court to determine a "reasonable" sum. Additionally, you must also show that the defendant requested the services.  Services were rendered You must provide evidence that you partially or fully performed the agreed-upon services. If you worked under a contract that was later deemed void or unenforceable, a quantum meruit claim could assist in determining the reasonable amount for the services you provided. Unjust enrichment It would be unfair to refuse to pay the plaintiff a fair price for those services if the defendant benefited from and enjoyed them.  Agreement that services are not free While there's no agreed amount for the service, it's clear that both parties expected compensation. Both parties have agreed that the service is not a gift. The element of choice is present, and the defendant chose to pay.  Infographic of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment definitions - **How an implied in fact contract in fact /quantum meruit different than a quasi contract.** An implied in fact contract is based on the conduct of the parties, while a quasi contract is not.  In a quasi contract, the parties may never have met. There may not have been any conduct by one of the parties in a quasi contract. You may be able to hold a party liable under an implied contract in fact/quasi contract EVEN IF that party did not get something of value. The entered into an implied contract in fact and one party performed and even if there was no value to the performance (had already sold the property, when the performing party made improvement to it\-\-\--the party who did not benefit must still pay under quantum meruit.) **How is an implied in fact contract different than promissory estoppel** In promissory estoppel, a party must pay because they broke a promise. A broken promise is not required to prove quantum meruit. Ill pay you to perform work at property I own at x street. I forget to tell you that I sold x street. You make improvements to x street after I sold it. No promissory estoppel. I did not break a promise. No unjust enrichment\-\--im not enriched by your work. But I ought to pay you based on quantum meruit. **COMPARISON OF QUASI CONTRACTS WE HAVE STUDIED** 1. **PROMISSORY RESTITUTION: Promise made after performance. Justice mandates enforcement of promise.** 2. **PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL: Promise made before performance that is reasonably relied on to the detriment of the promise. Justice mandates enforcement of promise.** 3. **UNJUST ENRICHMENT: No promise. Acceptance of benefit for which compensation should be paid.** 4. **QUANTUM MERUIT: A recovery of the fair value of services provided without a price agreement. "That which is deserved." No requirement of a broken promise. No requirement that the party from who you seek quantum meruit received the benefit. Recovery typically market value.**