Quantum meruit meaning

In this issue: Key DR developments Claims and remedies Injunctions Pre-action and limitation Case management New content Dates for your diary Useful information Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Challenging court jurisdiction Societe Generale SA (SocGen) renewed its challenge on 8 October 2024 to shift its €140m negligence action against Clifford Chance LLP away from England, contending before the Court of Appeal that the proceedings belong in France. SocGen argued that the High Court was wrong to treat England as the appropriate forum because it misapplied the overarching framework agreement between the French bank and Clifford Chance Europe LLP, the firm’s European arm. According to the bank, that agreement required disputes to be resolved in France. For more detail, see Law360 Analysis: SocGen bids to force €140m Clifford Chance case to France. Claims and remedies Forming enforceable contracts—alternative quantum meruit claims The Court of Appeal has upheld the High...

Glaser Kc and another v Atay [2024] EWCA Civ 1111 What are the practical implications of this case? The decision offers clear guidance on which provisions fall within CRA 2015, Pt 2 and the way the courts assess whether a consumer term is unfair. It highlights the severe consequence of an unfair term being unenforceable and the possibility that, under an entire obligation arrangement, no fee is recoverable even if some work has been undertaken. It is a prompt for all legal professionals to take care and exercise caution when preparing their own agreements and those for clients where the end-user is a consumer; additionally, advisers should remain alert to potential unfairness points when acting for consumers. The ruling must be read in the context of its particular facts. The court underlined that the global fee here was distinct from the traditional brief fee model—sometimes payable in stages—and refreshers. Therefore, the outcome does not prohibit terms that ‘fairly balance’ counsel’s need to manage their diaries with the client’s...

Dowman Imports Limited v 2 Toobz Limited [2020] EWHC 291 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? Unjust enrichment This ruling affirms and refines the approach to restitutionary claims when services are supplied in anticipation of a contract being finalised: Four core questions must be addressed: has the defendant obtained a benefit? was that benefit gained at the claimant’s expense? was the enrichment unjust? are any defences available? If those questions are answered in the claimant’s favour, the court will determine the value of the unjust enrichment by objectively assessing the market value or price of the services, akin to a quantum meruit. The defendant might try to show that they personally valued the services below market rate (subjective devaluation) to cut down or defeat the claim. That attempt fails if the claimant proves either that: the benefit was incontrovertible; or the defendant requested or freely accepted the benefit ...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is no longer maintained. It examines restitutionary claims for quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods): the relevant principles, the situations in which such claims may arise, and how to assess the value of any benefit conferred in those cases. When is quantum meruit and quantum valebat relevant? Claims in quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods) may emerge in a wide range of circumstances, from gaps in contractual terms on payment to the absence of any contract at all (Serck v Drake & Scull). For specific guidance on the interplay between quantum meruit/valebat claims and claims for unjust enrichment in the context of contractual relationships, see Practice Note: Unjust enrichment and contracts—failure of basis claims [Archived]. General principles—quantum meruit and quantum valebat claims Claims in quantum meruit and quantum valebat are generally treated as a category within unjust enrichment, although courts have at times regarded them as a distinct...

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Quantity surveyor (QS) Individual or practice appointed by the employer, otherwise a cost consultant...

This Practice Note This Practice Note considers the principal factors a party to a construction contract should address when preparing the quantum elements of a claim. It covers routine contractual claims (for example, loss and expense), as well as scenarios where the dispute stems from breach of contract or negligence, i.e. a claim for damages. It also examines frequent categories of recoverable loss, including: damages relating to defects claims future losses wasted management time loss of a chance third party settlement sums Beyond establishing whether a loss is recoverable and its value, additional quantum issues may include whether to advance a ‘global claim’, mitigation and betterment considerations, contributory negligence, and any contractual limits or exclusions. On the issue of loss within a dispute, the claimant bears the burden of proving both the fact of the loss and the amount claimed. For a fuller review of key and/or recent authorities concerning common heads of loss in construction disputes, such...