The following Dispute Resolution practice note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Claims in quantum meruit (value of services) and quantum valebat (value of goods) arise in diverse situations ranging from where contractual terms are silent on issues of payment to where there is no contract at all (Serck v Drake & Scull).
Claims in quantum meruit and quantum valebat are generally considered to be a category of claims in unjust enrichment (although courts sometimes see such claims as falling within their own distinct category of restitutionary claims (Yeoman’s Row v Cobbe).
As such, the general approach to unjust enrichment claims is relevant (see Practice Note: Restitution for unjust enrichment—elements of the claim). For example, in AMP v Force India Formula One Team, the claimant failed to establish the existence of a contract and therefore the court considered its alternative quantum meruit claim. This was pursued on the basis that Force India had been unjustly enriched by failing to pay any sums to AMP either for the actual introduction of a potential sponsor, or for the work undertaken and brokerage services provided which led to the conclusion of the sponsorship contract in question. The judge observed:
‘108. The legal principles were largely common ground: Benedetti v Sawiris:“It is now well-established that a court must first ask itself four questions when faced with a claim for unjust enrichment as
‘108. The legal principles were largely common ground: Benedetti v Sawiris:
“It is now well-established that a court must first ask itself four questions when faced with a claim for unjust enrichment as
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Fraud by false representationFraud by false representation applies to a broader range of conduct than the offences under the preceding legislation (the Theft Act 1968 (TA 1968)). No gain or loss need actually be made, and no deception need operate on the mind of the deceived for the Fraud Act 2006
The roles of nominated officer and money laundering reporting officerA nominated officer is an individual who is nominated by a firm to receive disclosures under Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002) or Part III of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TA 2000)—see Requirement to appoint a
What is recklessness?In respect of some statutory offences and common law crimes the prosecution are required to prove a mental element of recklessness on the part of the defendant.Recklessness means unjustified risk taking on the part of the accused.Prior to the House of Lords decision in Re G
Company directors are not, by virtue only of their office as director, automatically entitled under company law to remuneration for services as a director or to reimbursement of expenses incurred in rendering such services. Power to pay directors remuneration for their services will need to be
0330 161 1234
To view our latest legal guidance content,sign-in to Lexis®PSL or register for a free trial.