Yes, Texas law provides an equitable claim for the recovery of the reasonable value of goods or services that one provides to another when no contract covered the transaction. This cause of action is called quantum meruit. “To recover in quantum meruit, a claimant must prove that (1) valuable services were rendered or materials furnished; (2) for the person sought to be charged; (3) and were accepted by the person sought to be charged; (4) under circumstances that reasonably notified the person sought to be charged that the plaintiff, in performing the services or furnishing the materials, expected to be paid by the person sought to be charged.” Weaver v. Jamar, 383 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex. App.– Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)(emphasis added). “To recover in quantum meruit, the plaintiff must show that his efforts were undertaken for the person sought to be charged; it is not enough to merely show that his efforts benefitted the defendant.” Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tex. 1988). A party may recover under quantum meruit only when there is no express contract covering the services or materials furnished. Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex.1990).
Labels
- Affirmative Defenses
- Appeals
- Attorneys' Fees
- Contracts
- Copyright
- Damages
- Discovery
- Employees
- Employers
- Equity
- Evidence
- Fraud
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Insurance Claims
- Jurisdiction
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Mandamus
- Mistake
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Partners
- Partnerships
- Privileges
- Prospective Contracts
- Proximate Cause
- Quantum Meruit
- Remedies
- Shareholder Rights
- Special Appearance
- Specific Performance
- Statutes of Limitations
- Texas Theft Liability Act
- Tortious Interference
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Unfair Competition by Misappropriation
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Quantum Meruit
If my company provided goods or services to another company, but we did not have a contract, does my company have a claim for getting paid?
Yes, Texas law provides an equitable claim for the recovery of the reasonable value of goods or services that one provides to another when no contract covered the transaction. This cause of action is called quantum meruit. “To recover in quantum meruit, a claimant must prove that (1) valuable services were rendered or materials furnished; (2) for the person sought to be charged; (3) and were accepted by the person sought to be charged; (4) under circumstances that reasonably notified the person sought to be charged that the plaintiff, in performing the services or furnishing the materials, expected to be paid by the person sought to be charged.” Weaver v. Jamar, 383 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex. App.– Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)(emphasis added). “To recover in quantum meruit, the plaintiff must show that his efforts were undertaken for the person sought to be charged; it is not enough to merely show that his efforts benefitted the defendant.” Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tex. 1988). A party may recover under quantum meruit only when there is no express contract covering the services or materials furnished. Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex.1990).
Yes, Texas law provides an equitable claim for the recovery of the reasonable value of goods or services that one provides to another when no contract covered the transaction. This cause of action is called quantum meruit. “To recover in quantum meruit, a claimant must prove that (1) valuable services were rendered or materials furnished; (2) for the person sought to be charged; (3) and were accepted by the person sought to be charged; (4) under circumstances that reasonably notified the person sought to be charged that the plaintiff, in performing the services or furnishing the materials, expected to be paid by the person sought to be charged.” Weaver v. Jamar, 383 S.W.3d 805, 811 (Tex. App.– Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)(emphasis added). “To recover in quantum meruit, the plaintiff must show that his efforts were undertaken for the person sought to be charged; it is not enough to merely show that his efforts benefitted the defendant.” Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 937 (Tex. 1988). A party may recover under quantum meruit only when there is no express contract covering the services or materials furnished. Vortt Exploration Co. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex.1990).
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Unilateral Mistake: An Equitable Exception to Contract Enforcement
Can I get out of a contract that I entered into by mistake?
Generally, under Texas law, if the other party did not enter into the contract based upon the same mistake (i.e., both parties made the same mistake or mutual mistake) a party cannot avoid its contractual obligations even though it entered into a contract based upon its own mistake. Texas law, does however, recognize an equitable exception to this general principle. “[E]quitable relief will be granted against a unilateral mistake when the conditions of remediable mistake are present. These conditions generally are: (1) the mistake is of so great a consequence that to enforce the contract as made would be unconscionable; (2) the mistake relates to a material feature of the contract; (3) the mistake must have been made regardless of the exercise of ordinary care; and (4) the parties can be placed in status quo in the equity sense, i. e., rescission must not result in prejudice to the other party except for the loss of his bargain. There may be other circumstances which will govern or influence the extension of relief, such as the acts and extent of knowledge of the parties.” James T. Taylor & Son, Inc. v. Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist., 335 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. 1960).
Generally, under Texas law, if the other party did not enter into the contract based upon the same mistake (i.e., both parties made the same mistake or mutual mistake) a party cannot avoid its contractual obligations even though it entered into a contract based upon its own mistake. Texas law, does however, recognize an equitable exception to this general principle. “[E]quitable relief will be granted against a unilateral mistake when the conditions of remediable mistake are present. These conditions generally are: (1) the mistake is of so great a consequence that to enforce the contract as made would be unconscionable; (2) the mistake relates to a material feature of the contract; (3) the mistake must have been made regardless of the exercise of ordinary care; and (4) the parties can be placed in status quo in the equity sense, i. e., rescission must not result in prejudice to the other party except for the loss of his bargain. There may be other circumstances which will govern or influence the extension of relief, such as the acts and extent of knowledge of the parties.” James T. Taylor & Son, Inc. v. Arlington Indep. Sch. Dist., 335 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. 1960).
Monday, March 14, 2016
Specific performance as a remedy for breach of contract
Can one sue to make another party perform a contract that it has breached?
Generally, the remedy for a breach of contract is money damages sufficient to place the non-breaching party in the position that it would have been in but for the breach. However, the equitable remedy of specific performance is an exception to this general rule. The doctrine of specific performance may provide a means to make another party perform under the contract. “Specific performance is an equitable remedy that may be awarded at the trial court’s discretion upon a showing of breach of contract. Paciwest, Inc. v. Warner Alan Props., LLC, 266 S.W.3d 559, 571 (Tex. App.– Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied). Specific performance is not a separate cause of action, but rather is an equitable remedy used as a substitute for monetary damages when damages would not be adequate. Paciwest, 266 S.W.3d at 571; Stafford v. S. Vanity Magazine, Inc., 231 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Because specific performance is an equitable remedy available only when the legal remedy of damages is insufficient, when one brings a breach of contract suit, one must elect to sue for either money damages or specific performance. See Carrico v. Kondos, 111 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied).” Kleberg County v. URI, Inc., 13-14-00158-CV, 2016 WL 363114, at *11 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Jan. 28, 2016).
Generally, the remedy for a breach of contract is money damages sufficient to place the non-breaching party in the position that it would have been in but for the breach. However, the equitable remedy of specific performance is an exception to this general rule. The doctrine of specific performance may provide a means to make another party perform under the contract. “Specific performance is an equitable remedy that may be awarded at the trial court’s discretion upon a showing of breach of contract. Paciwest, Inc. v. Warner Alan Props., LLC, 266 S.W.3d 559, 571 (Tex. App.– Fort Worth 2008, pet. denied). Specific performance is not a separate cause of action, but rather is an equitable remedy used as a substitute for monetary damages when damages would not be adequate. Paciwest, 266 S.W.3d at 571; Stafford v. S. Vanity Magazine, Inc., 231 S.W.3d 530, 535 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Because specific performance is an equitable remedy available only when the legal remedy of damages is insufficient, when one brings a breach of contract suit, one must elect to sue for either money damages or specific performance. See Carrico v. Kondos, 111 S.W.3d 582, 588 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied).” Kleberg County v. URI, Inc., 13-14-00158-CV, 2016 WL 363114, at *11 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi Jan. 28, 2016).
Friday, March 11, 2016
Recovery of Lost Profits for a New Business
Can a new business that does not have an established track record recover lost profits as part of a breach of contract claim?
Assuming the losses are a natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s breach, then under Texas law, the answer depends upon a fact intensive inquiry, which focuses on the experience of the people involved in the business, the nature of the business, and the relevant market. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.1994). “To recover damages for breach of contract, a plaintiff must show that he suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of the breach. To recover lost profit damages, a plaintiff must show the loss by competent evidence and with reasonable certainty.” Peterson Group, Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus Group, L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46, 64 (Tex. App. Hous. [1st Dist.] 2013). “Lost profits are damages for the loss of net income to a business and, broadly speaking, reflect income from lost business activity, less expenses that would have been attributable to that activity. As a minimum, opinions or estimates of lost profits must be based on objective facts, figures, or data from which the amount of lost profits can be ascertained. Lost profits cannot be based on pure speculation or wishful thinking.” Peterson Group, Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus Group, L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46, 64-65 (Tex. App. Hous. [1st Dist.] 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted) citing Tex. Instruments, 877 S.W.2d at 279. “Profits which are largely speculative, as from an activity dependent on uncertain or changing market conditions, or on chancy business opportunities, or on promotion of untested products or entry into unknown or unviable markets, or on the success of a new and unproven enterprise, cannot be recovered. Factors like these and others which make a business venture risky in prospect preclude recovery of lost profits in retrospect . . . . The mere hope for success of an untried enterprise, even when that hope is realistic, is not enough for recovery of lost profits.” Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276, 279-80 (Tex.1994). However, the fact that a business is new does not absolutely preclude recovery of lost profits. See id. at 280. Recovery will depend upon the experience of the people involved in the business, the nature of the business, and the relevant market. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.1994).
Assuming the losses are a natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s breach, then under Texas law, the answer depends upon a fact intensive inquiry, which focuses on the experience of the people involved in the business, the nature of the business, and the relevant market. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.1994). “To recover damages for breach of contract, a plaintiff must show that he suffered a pecuniary loss as a result of the breach. To recover lost profit damages, a plaintiff must show the loss by competent evidence and with reasonable certainty.” Peterson Group, Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus Group, L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46, 64 (Tex. App. Hous. [1st Dist.] 2013). “Lost profits are damages for the loss of net income to a business and, broadly speaking, reflect income from lost business activity, less expenses that would have been attributable to that activity. As a minimum, opinions or estimates of lost profits must be based on objective facts, figures, or data from which the amount of lost profits can be ascertained. Lost profits cannot be based on pure speculation or wishful thinking.” Peterson Group, Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus Group, L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46, 64-65 (Tex. App. Hous. [1st Dist.] 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted) citing Tex. Instruments, 877 S.W.2d at 279. “Profits which are largely speculative, as from an activity dependent on uncertain or changing market conditions, or on chancy business opportunities, or on promotion of untested products or entry into unknown or unviable markets, or on the success of a new and unproven enterprise, cannot be recovered. Factors like these and others which make a business venture risky in prospect preclude recovery of lost profits in retrospect . . . . The mere hope for success of an untried enterprise, even when that hope is realistic, is not enough for recovery of lost profits.” Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276, 279-80 (Tex.1994). However, the fact that a business is new does not absolutely preclude recovery of lost profits. See id. at 280. Recovery will depend upon the experience of the people involved in the business, the nature of the business, and the relevant market. See Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Teletron Energy Mgmt., Inc., 877 S.W.2d 276, 280 (Tex.1994).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)