Author Question: Quantum Meruit. In December 2000, Nextel South Corp, a communications firm, contacted R. A. Clark ... (Read 49 times)

tth · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Quantum Meruit. In December 2000, Nextel South Corp, a communications firm, contacted R. A. Clark Consulting, Ltd., an executive search company, about finding an employment manager for Nextel's call center in Atlanta, Georgia. Over the next six months, Clark screened, evaluated, and interviewed over three hundred candidates. Clark provided Nextel over fifteen candidate summaries, including one for Dan Sax. Nextel hired Sax for the position at an annual salary of 75,000. Sax started work on June 25, 2001, took two weeks' vacation, and quit on July 31 in the middle of a project. Clark spent the next six weeks looking for a replacement, until Nextel asked Clark to stop. Clark billed Nextel for its services, but Nextel refused to pay, asserting in part that the parties had not signed an agreement. Nextel's typical agreement specified payment to an employment agency of 20 percent of an employee's annual salary. Clark filed a suit in a Georgia state court against Nextel to recover in quantum meruit. What is quantum meruit? What should Clark have to show to recover on this basis? Should the court rule in Clark's favor? Explain.

Question 2

Suppose a hurricane is going to hit South Florida; there are two days to prepare for it and the owner of a house is on a raft trip in Brazil and cannot be reached. The next door neighbors spend 800 on plywood and other materials to protect the house from the hurricane. Legally, this expenditure is likely to be:
a. is a gift from the neighbors, nothing more
b. is the responsibility of the homeowner; there is an agency by estoppel
c. is the responsibility of the homeowner; there is implied ratification of the agency d. is the responsibility of the homeowner; there is agency by operation of law
e. none of the other choices

juiceman1987 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Quantum meruit
As you learned from the text, the Latin phrase quantum meruit means as much as he deserves and is tied to the doctrine of quasi contract. According to the chapter, a quasi contract is a fictional contract created by a court and imposed on parties solely in the interest of fairness. A quasi contract is formed when a court seeks to avoid the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another. Quantum meruit prescribes the amount of compensation that will be owed under the implied contract. To decide in this case whether a claim for quantum meruit will be successful, first it must be shown that there was no actual contract and then that there is a basis for the court to impose a quasi contract. Here, the facts specify that the parties had not signed a contract. (Note that there is an argument that the parties' conduct had resulted in an implied-in fact contract, which is an actual contract. They apparently did not pursue that theory of the case.) Without an actual contract, in order for Clark to prevail, the court had to determine that there was enough evidence to find an implied-in-law contract, or quasi-contract. The essential element that Clark needed to prove was that Nextel had been unjustly enriched by Clark's performance of services. If you reached the conclusion that Clark was able to prove its case, you agree with the state appellate court. The court found an implied contract because Clark spent months evaluating candidates at Nextel's request, and Nextel hired a candidate specifically placed by Clark. Clark then worked for six weeks to find a replacement, stopping only when Nextel terminated their relationship. Under the theory of quantum meruit, the court entered a judgment in favor of Clark for the amount that Nextel would have paid under its typical agreement.

Answer to Question 2

d