Court Opinion

ID: 9645176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:15:19.108372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:24.431370
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM:
On motion for rehearing defendant-appellant Hospital Building & Equipment Co., Inc. argues that our opinion changes the substantive law of contracts by permitting a submission under quantum meruit whereas plaintiff’s suit was filed in express contract. Defendant attacks our reference to the fact that at trial defendant acknowledged that it owed “something” to plaintiff for plaintiff’s services and that the amount of $3,000 was discussed. We uphold the right of the jury to consider defendant’s admission in this regard, but defendant asserts that its testimony may not serve to vary the amount of the express contract sued on by the plaintiff. We have said that defendant was not prejudiced by allowing the jury to consider evidence submitted by defendant which would reduce the amount of recovery to plaintiff. We find Polen v. Kansas City Chip Steak Co., 404 S.W.2d 416 (Mo.App.1966) dispositive of defendant’s argument. The holding of' the Polen case is that where a plaintiff sues for an amount fixed by an express contract and the jury finds for the plaintiff in a lesser amount, then, even though plaintiff is willing to accept the lesser amount, the defendant is entitled to a new trial, for the jury has disregarded the issue. That is the position taken by the defendant here, and we do not quarrel with or seek to change the law as so stated. But the Polen case goes further and holds that where the defendant — as in this case — has introduced evidence which would tend to lessen the amount of plaintiff’s recovery, the defendant may not complain, for there is no prejudice to defendant in such case. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
All Judges concur.