It operates as an equitable remedy based upon a quasi contract or a contract implied in law. A quasi contract or a contract implied in law is not a contract. An implied contract is not based on an actual agreement, and quantum meruit is not an appropriate remedy when there is an actual agreement between the parties. We will not imply a contract in law in derogation of sovereign immunity. In Smith , we held that when the State, acting through officers and agencies authorized by law, enters into a valid contract, it implicitly waives its sovereign immunity and consents to be sued for damages upon its breach of the contract.
State is liable only upon contracts authorized by law .
When it enters into a contract it does so voluntarily and authorizes its liability. Furthermore, the State may, with a fair degree of accuracy, estimate the extent of its liability for a breach of contract. Consistent with the reasoning of Smith , we will not first imply a contract in law where none exists in fact, then use that implication to support the further implication that the State has intentionally waived its sovereign immunity and consented to be sued for damages for breach of the contract it never entered in fact. Only when the State has implicitly waived sovereign immunity by expressly entering into a valid contract through an agent of the State expressly authorized by law to enter into such contract may a plaintiff proceed with a claim against the State upon the State's breach. The State has not authorized its district attorneys to contract for payment of fees for attorneys' services of any type.