Court Opinion

ID: 9623211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:29:55.604675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:27.157853
License: Public Domain

TONGUE, J.,
Specially Concurring.
As stated by the majority, the decision by the court in this case does not overturn the long established rule that a plaintiff cannot be required to elect between alternative counts of express contract and quantum meruit. The opinion by the majority fails, however, to make it clear that when any doubt exists regarding the existence or enforceability of an express contract, or when the express contract fails to provide the basis for payments to be made under the contract, a plaintiff may plead alternatively on an express contract and in quantum meruit without being required to elect.
*595Similarly, this holding does not preclude a plaintiff from proceeding solely in quantum meruit even when the defendant admits to the existence and enforceability of an express contract covering the same services. See Sinnock v. Zimmerman, 132 Or 137, 144-45, 284 P2d 838 (1930). In such a case, however, the terms of the contract will govern recovery. Id.
It is only when a plaintiff proceeds on alternative theories of express contract and quantum meruit, and the defendant subsequently admits to the existence and enforceability of a contract which provides the basis for payments to be made under the contract that the plaintiff may be required to elect or the count in quantum meruit stricken. Because, however, those facts are present in this case I concur in the decision by the majority.