Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".
In the United States, the elements of quantum meruit are determined by state common law. For example, to state a claim for unjust enrichment in New York, a plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense; and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require defendants to make restitution.
Quantum meruit is the measure of damages where an express contract is mutually modified by the implied agreement of the parties, or not completed. While there is often confusion between the concept of quantum meruit and that of "unjust enrichment" of one party at the expense of another, the two concepts are distinct.
The concept of quantum meruit applies in (but is not limited to) the following set of situations:
When a person hires another to do work, but an impeding act falling short of vitiating frustration/repudiation has occurred, such as access or intervening act of God, the worker may sue (or counter-sue) for the value of the improvements made/services rendered. The law implies a promise from the employer to the worker that they will pay them for their services, as much as they may deserve or merit.The measure of value set forth in a contract is legally admissible as evidence of the value of the improvements or services but the court (or thus out of court settlement) is not required to use the contract's terms when calculating a quantum meruit award. (This is because the values set forth in the contract are rebuttable, meaning the one who ultimately may have to pay the award can contest the value of services set in the contract.)
When there is an express contract for a stipulated amount and mode of compensation for services, the plaintiff cannot abandon the contract and resort to an action for a quantum meruit on an implied assumpsit.
Cette page est générée automatiquement et peut contenir des informations qui ne sont pas correctes, complètes, à jour ou pertinentes par rapport à votre recherche. Il en va de même pour toutes les autres pages de ce site. Veillez à vérifier les informations auprès des sources officielles de l'EPFL.
Un contrat en droit suisse est défini par l'article 1, alinéa premier du Code des obligations : « Le contrat est parfait lorsque les parties ont, réciproquement et d'une manière concordante, manifesté leur volonté ». Comme dans de nombreux pays de tradition juridique romano-civiliste, le contrat en droit suisse est l'échange d'au moins deux manifestations de volonté, appelées l'offre et l'acceptation, par lesquelles les parties décident de produire un effet juridique. Le contrat est donc un acte juridique bilatéral ou multilatéral.
En droit civil, l'institution de lenrichissement sans cause (aussi appelé enrichissement illégitime, enrichissement injustifié ou action de in rem verso ), consiste à permettre à une personne qui se sera acquittée sans raison d'une obligation, et qui se sera donc appauvrie, de demander à être remboursée par celui qui s'est enrichi à son détriment. Ainsi, nul ne peut s'enrichir aux dépens d'autrui. Enrichissement sans cause en droit français La notion d'enrichissement sans cause a été reconnue par la Cour de cassation en 1892.
Consideration is a concept of English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts (contracts by deed). The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions. The court in Currie v Misa declared consideration to be a “Right, Interest, Profit, Benefit, or Forbearance, Detriment, Loss, Responsibility”. Thus, consideration is a promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee; and typically the thing of value is goods, money, or an act.