Opinion ID: 2972741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unjust Enrichment/Quantum Meruit

Text: HGB’s final argument is that it should have been able to submit to the jury the issue of whether it was entitled to recover based on a theory of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit. HGB acknowledges that Kentucky law does not allow such claims where “there has been an explicit contract which has been performed.” Tractor & Farm Supply, Inc. v. Ford New Holland, Inc., 898 1 Although not reaching this issue, the Court notes that it is far from clear that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the contention that Pomeroy was responsible for cancelling the Customer Agreement with EMC and that it did so with the specific purpose of circumventing its duty to pay HGB commissions pursuant to the Commission Agreement. Instead, the weight of the evidence indicates that EMC was responsible for cancelling the Customer Agreement. 8 F. Supp. 1198, 1206 (W.D. Ky. 1995). HGB contends that unjust enrichment and quantum meruit are viable theories of recovery because Pomeroy did not perform its obligations under the Commission Agreement. This assertion is based entirely on HGB’s view that the Commission Agreement obligated Pomeroy to pay commissions on the net profits resulting from all of its transactions with EMC over the course of one year. This construction has been discussed and rejected. The only reasonable construction of the Commission Agreement is that the cancellation of the Customer Agreement between Pomeroy and EMC relieved Pomeroy of any duty to pay HGB a commission. Since Pomeroy was under no obligation to pay HGB, there is no aspect of the Commission Agreement which Pomeroy failed to perform. The factual predicate of HGB’s argument–that Pomeroy did not perform its obligations under the Commission Agreement–is invalid. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Pomeroy on these claims.