Opinion ID: 2185435
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: quantum meruit or unjust enrichment

Text: Mooney's final contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to DOT as to Mooney's quantum meruit or unjust enrichment claim. Mooney's claims that the inaccuracies of the pit data forced it to process unanticipated quantities of aggregate to wind up with the amount required under the contract. The amount of gravel required under the contract and that which was supplied by Mooney's does not appear to differ. Thus, DOT only received what was contemplated under the contract. In Thurston v. Cedric Sanders Co., 80 S.D. 426, 125 N.W.2d 496, 498 (1963), this court stated that quantum meruit does not provide a basis for recovery when a valid express contract exists between the parties, fixing the rights of each. There is no question but what, where there is a valid express contract existing between parties in relation to a transaction fully fixing the rights of each, there is no room for an implied promise, or suit on quantum meruit. Id. (citations omitted). In Reif v. Smith, 319 N.W.2d 815, 817 (S.D.1982), we stated that in cases where the contract is substantially performed recovery is on the contract not in quantum meruit. In this case there was an express contract; Mooney's provided and DOT received what was contemplated by the contract. Therefore, summary judgment on this issue was proper and we affirm. MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON, J., concur. WUEST and HENDERSON, JJ., concur in result.