PJC Business

PJC 101.42

C ONTRACTS

Marathon Oil Co. , 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1989). When “the evidence shows that no contract covers the service at issue, then the question of whether a party may recover in quantum meruit is for the trier of fact.” Gulf Liquids New River Project, LLC v. Gulsby Engineering, Inc. , 356 S.W.3d 54, 70 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). The right to recover in quantum meruit is based on a promise “implied by law to pay for beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted.” Hill , 544 S.W.3d at 732; In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d at 740; Davidson v. Clearman , 391 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tex. 1965). Recovery in quantum meruit is allowed for partial performance of an express con tract if (1) the defendant’s breach prevents the plaintiff’s completion or (2) the contract is unilateral and requires no performance by the plaintiff. Truly , 744 S.W.2d at 936–37. Texas cases involving building or construction contracts have permitted a breach ing plaintiff to recover in quantum meruit. Murray v. Crest Construction, Inc. , 900 S.W.2d 342, 345 (Tex. 1995) (construction contracts are an exception to the general rule that a party may not recover under quantum meruit when there is an express con tract covering the services or materials furnished); Truly , 744 S.W.2d at 937. See also Dobbins v. Redden , 785 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Tex. 1990); Beeman v. Worrell , 612 S.W.2d 953, 956 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1981, no writ). For further discussion of construction contracts, see PJC 101.46–101.49. Quantum meruit may also permit a recovery in equity when a contract is unenforce able because it is barred by the statute of frauds. See Quigley v. Bennett , 227 S.W.3d 51, 55 (Tex. 2007) (holding that alleged oral agreement to receive royalty interest was barred by the statute of frauds but remanding for consideration of quantum meruit claim). See PJC 115.7 for a question on quantum meruit recovery. Broad-form submission. PJC 101.42 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Modification of instruction. The above instruction may be modified to delete references to either materials or services if one is not at issue in the case.

102