Opinion ID: 2630317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Meaning of Quantum Meruit

Text: ¶ 46 The majority also devotes a number of pages to a discussion of implied contract theory, and its outline of the distinction between implied-in-law and implied-in-fact contracts may prove useful. However, in that discussion, the majority makes an unannounced and unprincipled change to the definition of the phrase quantum meruit, a change that may be confusing to litigants and courts alike. ¶ 47 In examining this change in the definition of quantum meruit, we must first note that payment of the reasonable value of services rendered is a remedy for breach of both types of implied contracts: contracts implied in fact and contracts implied in law. Implied-in-law contracts are also called quasi contracts, and they seek to remedy unjust enrichment, thus all three terms are regularly used to describe the action itself. The remedy in an unjust enrichment action is restitution, see BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1573-74 (8th ed.2004), which is measured as either: (1) the reasonable value of the services or (2) the increase in value of the recipient's property, RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 371(a), (b) (1981). The remedy for breach of an implied-in-fact contract is simply the reasonable value of services. Eaton v. Engelcke Mfg., Inc., 37 Wash.App. 677, 682, 681 P.2d 1312 (1984). ¶ 48 At least until now, quantum meruit simply has been the Latin shorthand for the reasonable value measure of recovery, regardless of whether the plaintiff sought recovery under a contract implied in law (quasi contract, unjust enrichment) or a contract implied in fact. 1 ARTHUR LINTON CORBIN & JOSEPH M. PERILLO, A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 4.5, at 596 (rev. ed. 1993) (`Reasonable value' is often expressed in the law-[L]atin phrase quantum meruit. This phrase, or its English equivalent, reasonable value, is used in express or implied-in-fact contracts, and in quasi contract cases. (footnote omitted)); Heaton, 93 Wash.2d at 252-53, 608 P.2d 631 (stating that [q]uantum meruit is not a legal obligation like quasi contract, but is rather a remedy: `a reasonable amount for work done,' granting quantum meruit recovery on the basis of a quasi-contract claim); Black's, supra, at 1276 (the reasonable value of services.); Eaton, 37 Wash.App. at 680, 681 P.2d 1312 (stating that quantum meruit applied in quasi-contract and implied-in-fact contract cases.); Bailie Commc'ns, Ltd. v. Trend Bus. Sys., Inc., 61 Wash.App. 151, 159, 810 P.2d 12 (1991) (`Quantum meruit as amount of recovery ... measures recovery under implied contract to pay compensation as reasonable value of services rendered.' (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1243 (6th ed.1990))). The term quantum meruit logically describes a measure of recovery for both implied-in-law and implied-in-fact contracts, because both can be remedied by a reasonable value recovery, for which the phrase quantum meruit is merely a shorthand description. ¶ 49 The majority now states, as though it were an unshakable historical premise, that the term quantum meruit can be used only in the context of a contract implied in fact. Majority at 1262. The majority cites to Eaton for the proposition that quantum meruit recovery applies to contracts implied in fact (presumably to the exclusion of contracts implied in law/quasi contracts). Majority at 1262. Eaton, however, clearly demonstrates an expansive usage of the term: The remedy of quantum meruit applies in a variety of situations. See Heaton ..., [93 Wash.2d 249, 608 P.2d 631] (quasi contract); Lester N. Johnson Co. v. [City of] Spokane, 22 Wash.App. 265, 588 P.2d 1214 (1978) (when parties enter into a contract and substantial change not within their contemplation later occurs); Dravo Corp. v. L.W. Moses Co., 6 Wash.App. 74, 492 P.2d 1058 (1971) (restitution for part performance); Kintz v. Read, 28 Wash.App. 731, 626 P.2d 52 (1981); Hopkins v. Anderson, 7 Wash.App. 762, 502 P.2d 473 (1972) (implied in fact contract to pay the reasonable value for services rendered). 37 Wash.App. at 680-81, 681 P.2d 1312. The majority's only other support for restricting the use of the term quantum meruit to implied-in-fact contract situations is a Maine case. The majority then goes on, in a footnote, to dismiss the significance of two cases from this court that gave quantum meruit awards based on contracts implied in law. ¶ 50 The majority tells us that the distinction between quantum meruit recovery and recovery under an unjust enrichment (implied-in-law contract) theory is legally significant because one is equitable while the other is legal. Majority at 1263. But the legal significance lies in the nature of the underlying cause of action, not the name of the measure of recovery. The term quantum meruit as the name for a remedy garnered this kind of legal significance for the first time today, when the majority declared that it could no longer be used in the implied-in-law contract context. ¶ 51 Of course, this court is entitled to change its mind. It has the prerogative to decide that quantum meruit describes reasonable value recovery under implied-in-fact contracts, and to banish the term from the discussion of reasonable value recovery under implied-in-law contracts. After all, because the majority does not change the substance of implied contract claims, the distinction is purely semantic. ¶ 52 But when this court changes the definition of a long-used common-law term, it should be clear about it. It should inform future litigants that they can no longer rely on the dictionary definition of the term, see BLACK'S, supra, at 1276, nor on the explanations in major treatises, see 26 LORD, supra, § 68:1, at 5. And it should make such a change for a well-articulated reason. The majority does not do so. ¶ 53 Because this court and future litigants should be apprised of this change, and because the majority inadvisably constrains the discretion of trial judges to do equity to the parties in unjust enrichment cases involving informal construction agreements, I write in dissent. WE CONCUR: FAIRHURST, C. JOHNSON, JJ., and BRIDGE, J.P.T.