Opinion ID: 21695
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Quantum Meruit Claim

Text: 26 In response to Jordan's claim in quantum meruit for the consulting services Jordan performed, but was allegedly not compensated for, Kimmons argues that quantum meruit is not available because a written contract had been executed between the parties. 27 In general under Texas law, a party seeking to recover for services rendered will only be able to recover under quantum meruit when there is no express contract between the parties. See Truly v. Austin, 744 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1988). Therefore, a plaintiff may not recover under the general rule of quantum meruit when the claim pleaded fits within the subject matter of a contract between the parties. See id. However, the Truly court recognized two exceptions: (1) [r]ecovery in quantum meruit is allowed when a plaintiff has partially performed an express contract but, because of the defendant's breach, the plaintiff is prevented from completing the contract; and (2) quantum meruit recovery is sometimes allowed when a plaintiff partially performs an express contract that also happens to be unilateral in nature. See id. at 936-37. 28 The December 24, 1996 agreement between the parties was an express contract in which Jordan agreed to provide consulting services for Kimmons, making quantum meruit unavailable. Also, neither of the two exceptions explained in Truly applies. Assuming arguendo that Kimmons did breach the contract, Jordan was not in any way prevented by Kimmons from completing performance under the bilateral contract. Therefore, summary judgment on the quantum meruit issue is affirmed.