Court Opinion

ID: 9590165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:52:07.919802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:55.593370
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice HENRIOD. Under the facts of this case it was improper to award judgment to plaintiff upon a theory of quantum meruit. The plaintiff had been working for the defendant at a specified salary; the new contract by which his salary would have been increased as discussed by the parties contemplated services on a yearly basis. The business is seasonal. A good,portion of the year is quiet and the time is spent in preparation for the fall and winter when the greatest volume of merchandise is sold. Inasmuch as the plaintiff worked from March 1st until July, accepting the old salary, and then quit in the off season, the only fair assumption would be that he held over under the old salary. Any modification of it would have to be by express contract. This is the view the plaintiff had of the matter; he so declared in his complaint and the case was tried on that theory. Under those circumstances it seems manifestly unjust to impose liability upon the defendant for a higher salary on a theory of implied contract. This would simply permit the court, rather than the parties to fix the compensation of the plaintiff.
However under rule 54 requiring the court to “grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings * * * ” there undoubtedly would be circumstances where the court could allow recovery under quantum meruit even though the plaintiff had' declared'on an express contract. 'It is’of course true that such should’never be done *178unless the opposing party had a fair opportunity to be apprised of and meet the issue so presented.
McDONOUGH and WADE, JJ., concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice HENRIOD and also in the- comments of Mr. Justice CROCKETT.
WOLFE, C. J., not participating.