PJC Business

C ONTRACTS

PJC 101.42

PJC 101.42 Question and Instruction on Quantum Meruit QUESTION ______ Did Paul Payne perform compensable work for Don Davis for which he was not compensated? Paul Payne performed compensable work if he rendered valuable services or furnished valuable materials to Don Davis ; Don Davis accepted, used, and ben efited from the services or materials; and, under the circumstances, Don Davis was reasonably notified that Paul Payne expected to be compensated for the services or materials. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. If one party receives a benefit by accepting the services of another, the accepting party is obligated by principles of equity to pay the reasonable value of those services. Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP , 544 S.W.3d 724, 732 (Tex. 2018); In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d 732, 740 (Tex. 2005); Colbert v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank , 150 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Tex. 1941). The elements of a quantum meruit claim are set out in Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A. , 787 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1990) (citing Bashara v. Baptist Memorial Hospital System , 685 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Tex. 1985)). If a valid express contract covering the services rendered or materials furnished exists, recovery on quantum meruit generally is not allowed under Texas law. Hill , 544 S.W.3d at 733, 737; In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d at 740; Truly v. Austin , 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988); see also Woodard v. Southwest States, Inc. , 384 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tex. 1964). When the existence of or the terms of a contract are in doubt, the party disputing recovery in quantum meruit has the burden of proving that an express contract exists covering the subject matter of the dispute. Freeman v. Carroll , 499 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cited with approval in Fortune Production Co. v. Conoco, Inc. , 52 S.W.3d 671, 685 (Tex. 2000); see Truly , 744 S.W.2d at 936 (discussing the general rule that one may recover in quantum meruit only when there is no express contract). The existence of an express contract does not, however, preclude recovery in quan tum meruit for the reasonable value of work performed and accepted but not covered by the contract. Hill , 544 S.W.3d at 737; Black Lake Pipe Line Co. v. Union Construc tion Co. , 538 S.W.2d 80, 86 (Tex. 1976), overruled on other grounds by Sterner v.

101