Quantum meruit definition
Quantum meruit means “as much as he deserves.” It is an equitable doctrine, based on the concept that no one who benefits by the labor and materials of another should be unjustly enriched thereby; under these circumstances, the law implies a promise to pay a reasonable amount for the labor and materials furnished. (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition)
Quantum meruit means “as much as he deserves”. An equitable doctrine, based on the concept that no one who benefits by the labor and materials of another should be unjustly enriched. Under those circumstances, the law implies a promise to pay a reasonable amount of the labor and materials furnished, even absent a specific contract.
Quantum meruit means’ as much as merited’ or ‘as much as earned’. In simple terms, it means payment in proportion to the amount of work done.
Examples of Quantum meruit in a sentence
Quantum meruit also may allow recovery where a party furnishes labor, materials, or other services for the benefit of another where it would be unjust for the receiving party to retain those benefits without paying for them.
Quantum meruit measures the value of services to the recipient, not the costs to the provider.
Quantum meruit is an equitable doctrine by which one who is enriched from the materials or labor of another must pay for the benefit he/she has received for the reasonable value of his or her work so as long as the contractor’s failure to complete on time was not willful or deliberate.108 1-3:3.2 Liquidated DamagesLiquidated damages provisions are a common feature of many contracts and represent an attempt by the parties to agree upon damages in advance of a breach.
Quantum meruit is applicable where no express contract exists between the parties.
Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy based on an implied promise to pay for benefits received.
More Definitions of Quantum meruit
Quantum meruit means “[t]he reasonable value of services.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1276 (8th ed. 2004). “‘The general rule is that if a person performs valuable services for another at that other’s request, the law implies, as matter of fact, the making of a promise by the latter and acceptance thereof by the former to pay the one performing the service the reasonable value thereof.’” Theuerkauf, 102 Wis. 2d at 184 (quoting Wojahn v. National Union Bank, 144 Wis. 646, 667, 129 N.W. 1068 (1911)). Where a plaintiff establishes “(1) the defendant requested him to perform services, (2) he complied with the request, and (3) the services were valuable to the defendant, the plaintiff has established a prima facie case” for quantum meruit recovery. Theuerkauf, 102 Wis. 2d at 185.
Quantum meruit means literally ‘as much as deserved.’” Reid, Johnson, Downes, Andrachik & Webster v. Lansberry, 68 Ohio St.3d 570, 573, 629 N.E.2d 431 (1994), quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1243 (6th Ed.1990).
Quantum meruit literally means ‘as much as earned’ or as much as it merited’. When a person has done some work under a contract, and the other party repudiates the contract, or some event happens which makes the further performance of the contract impossible, them the party who has performed the work can claim remuneration for the work he has already done. Likewise, where one person has expressly or impliedly requested another to render him a service without specifying any remuneration, but the circumstances of the request imply that the service is to be
Quantum meruit literally means “as much as he deserved.” Losli v. Foster, 37 Wn.2d 220, 233, 222 P.2d 824 (1950). Courts use quantum meruit to compensate an individual for the reasonable value of the services he or she has provided to another. See Schuehle v. City of Seattle, 199 Wash. 675, 683, 92 P.2d 1109 (1939); Young v. Young, 164 Wn.2d 477, 485, 191
Quantum meruit as an amount of recovery means ‘as much as deserved’ . .
Quantum meruit means the value of services rendered to the Government for which the Government is obligated to pay based on an implied contract when the amount due is not stipulated in a legally enforceable contract.
Quantum meruit means “as much as he has deserved” and refers to “[a] claim or right of action for the reasonable value of services rendered.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1361-62 (9th ed. 2009).attorney fees that Lavery Law received from March 28, 2015, through and including July 6, 2015. (Id., No. 26.) The WCJ also directed NorGuard to pay the Faherty Law Firm 20 percent of Claimant’s wage-loss benefits. (Id.) On December 10, 2015, the WCJ issued a decision denying NorGuard’s petitions for modification, suspension, and review, dismissing NorGuard’s physical examination petition as moot, and denying Claimant’s penalty petition. (WCJ’s Conclusions of Law, Nos. 2-3.) The WCJ granted in part Claimant’s reinstatement petition and awarded Claimant two closed periods of temporary total disability benefits. (Id., No. 4.) In regard to the fee dispute, the WCJ found that Lavery Law was not entitled to any additional attorney fees because it “already received over $14,000.00 in fees between the January 23, 2012 decision approving the 20% fee agreement through March 27, 2015,” the last day that Lavery Law represented Claimant. (WCJ’s Findings of Fact, No. 33) Therefore, the WCJ: (1) awarded the Faherty Law Firm all attorney fees payable on or after March 28, 2015; (2) directed Lavery Law to reimburse the Faherty Law Firm for any attorney fees payable on or after March 28, 2015; (3) directed the Faherty Law Firm to reimburse Lavery Law for any litigation costs not reimbursed by NorGuard; and (4) approved the Second Fee Agreement. (WCJ’s Conclusions of Law, Nos. 5, 7.) Lavery Law appealed to the WCAB, whichaffirmed the WCJ’s allocation of attorney fees. Lavery Law now petitions for review of that decision.4 Lavery Law argues that the WCJ erred in not awarding Lavery Law$7,025.04 in quantum meruit for uncompensated legal services that Lavery Law provided Claimant from October 3, 2008, through February 27, 2015, and directing that this award be deducted from any future attorney fees received by the Faherty Law Firm. We disagree. A WCJ has the authority to resolve attorney fee disputes between successive counsel when the former counsel filed a fee agreement before he or she was discharged. Bierman v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Philadelphia National Bank), 113 A.3d 38, 42 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). “[T]he WCJ is granted the authority to determine what constitutes a reasonable attorney fee.” Mayo v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Goodman Distribution, Inc.), 109 A.3d 286, 289 (Pa. Cmwlth...