Theoretical Dispute

littlejp

Let's say for example:
A friend of mine helps me out with some work on my apartment. Some pretty big jobs but he doesn't mind helping. I pay for all materials etc. He is just donating his time and expertise.
Work is completed and 6 months later we have a big falling out, unrelated to the work.
Former friend then decides he wants payment for all the work he has put in and hands me a bill.
Is he legally entitled to anything?

littlemac1980

I would suggest he may well be.

Your view was that he was 'donating his time and expertise'.

Clearly his view is different.

There is a clear dispute as to what was agreed.

It would need to be determined that the agreement was that there would be no pay. However, you have had the work done, and he has nothing.

Based on the theoretical facts you've outlined I'd suggest the benefit of doubt would be in his favour. If he is a professional painter by trade, then that would also be further factor in his favour.

Is this an exam question?

littlejp

No. Not an exam question. I had a conversation with a friend about a similar situation and have been curious about the legalities of it since then.

In this example the work was done as a favour in good faith at the time. It is only since the friendship has soured that the person now wants payment.

eigrod

I would have thought that the lack of an invoice for works done and the 6 month gap before he claimed he should be paid would be huge factors in favour of the person who had the work carried out.

It's one person's word against the other also so would be difficult for him to prove how much of the work he carried out, in the absence of paperwork.

All of the above is on the assumption that no paperwork was exchanged at any stage.

Reloc8

Yes he is possibly entitled to claim.

In the absence of a specific agreement to the contrary, particularly if the other person gained financially due to his work, a court could decide that he was entitled to expect to be compensated and make an award on what is called a quantum meruit basis.

As nothing was written down here, it seems, this is one person's word against another. The objective facts (such as whether the work was of financial benefit to the other party, the nature and extent of the work - 'some big jobs') etc. will be particularly relevant to a court in those circumstances.

Failure to invoice is also objectively relevant - explicable in the circumstances however ('we were mates, I never thought I'd have to invoice him').

Essentially, if two mates are of one mind that there will be no pay, and one goes against that understanding and claims, they may be a bit of a heel, but that in itself won't prevent them from recovering.

Kosseegan

To form an enforceable contract there must be an intention to create legal relations. There are a number of presumptions. If a person in business is asked to do something there is a presumption that there is such an intention. If you meet a peson in a pub and mention that you have a toothache and the person says I am a dentist come around to my surgery and I will look at it. In that case it is presumed that the work will be paid for. In social situations there is a presumption that there is no iontention to create legal relations. If you ask a neighbour to help you with your bin there is no presumption that you intend to create legal relations.
On the facts given there was no intention to create legal relations. There is no contract.
How this would work out if the friend sued on his bill is another matter. It would be for the court to decide. If the court holds that there was an intention to create legal relatioons the work will have to be paid for otherwise no. A case like that could run for hours with all kinds of competing claims. There can be no certainty about the outcome.

Reloc8

Kosseegan wrote: »

To form an enforceable contract there must be an intention to create legal relations. .

The central principle of a quantum meruit claim is the lack of an enforceable contract in circumstances where it is still fair & reasonable that the person carrying out the work be paid.

Milk & Honey

Reloc8 wrote: »

The central principle of a quantum meruit claim is the lack of an enforceable contract in circumstances where it is still fair & reasonable that the person carrying out the work be paid.

There cannot be a claim for a quantum meruit without an enforceable contract. Quantum merit is simply a claim to have the court determine the amount of the consideration.

MagicSean

What if the person brought the friend out for a few beers or bought them something small as a token of gratitude. Could acceptance of this be considered payment?

Milk & Honey

I can't see the relevance. The whole issue is whether or not there was an intention to create legal relations. If there was, accepting a small gift would not make any difference to the entitlement to be paid. People sometimes give small gifts as a bonus if they are happy with work done. It would be ridiculous if acceptance of a small token ostensibly given in good faith could be used to defeat a claim for payment of the entire amount due, which might be a massive multiple of the value of a gift.
A nice idea that if I got an extension added to my house, I could wait to be sued and then produce a receipt for a few bottles of beer and say I don't have to pay!

234

Reloc8 wrote: »

The central principle of a quantum meruit claim is the lack of an enforceable contract in circumstances where it is still fair & reasonable that the person carrying out the work be paid.

Surely the basis for quantum meruit is failure of consideration (in the broad sense). While there does not necessarilay need to be an enforceable contract it can often arise in these circumstances.

234

Milk & Honey wrote: »

There cannot be a claim for a quantum meruit without an enforceable contract. Quantum merit is simply a claim to have the court determine the amount of the consideration.

Quantum meruit arises where there is failure of consideration (in a broad sense). It can occur in more circumstances than where there is an enforceable contact e.g. failure of legislation becuase of unconstitutionality.

Milk & Honey

234 wrote: »

Quantum meruit arises where there is failure of consideration (in a broad sense). It can occur in more circumstances than where there is an enforceable contact e.g. failure of legislation becuase of unconstitutionality.

If there is no consideration there is no contract. Quantum meruit is to determine the amount of the consideration. An example is where as in the case of Henehan v Courtney 101 I.L.T.R. 25 work was done by an auctioneer. The auctioneer claimed on a quantum meruit basis for fees
it was held " in the absence of express terms providing for a specific commission, the estate agent is entitled to reasonable remuneration for work performed."

There has to be a valid contract in place first under which there is an entitlement to payment. Quantum meruit is often sought as an alternative where there might be a dispute about an actual figure.
The unconstitutionality of legislation has absolutely to do with quantum meruit.

Ken.

littlejp wrote: »

Let's say for example:
A friend of mine helps me out with some work on my apartment. Some pretty big jobs but he doesn't mind helping. I pay for all materials etc. He is just donating his time and expertise.
Work is completed and 6 months later we have a big falling out, unrelated to the work.
Former friend then decides he wants payment for all the work he has put in and hands me a bill.
Is he legally entitled to anything?

Was the friend claiming any sort of social welfare at the time. If he was and tried to pursue a case through court the social could find out and take a dim view of it.

234

Milk & Honey wrote: »

If there is no consideration there is no contract. Quantum meruit is to determine the amount of the consideration. An example is where as in the case of Henehan v Courtney 101 I.L.T.R. 25 work was done by an auctioneer. The auctioneer claimed on a quantum meruit basis for fees
it was held " in the absence of express terms providing for a specific commission, the estate agent is entitled to reasonable remuneration for work performed."

There has to be a valid contract in place first under which there is an entitlement to payment. Quantum meruit is often sought as an alternative where there might be a dispute about an actual figure.
The unconstitutionality of legislation has absolutely to do with quantum meruit.

As I mentioned above I was speaking about consideration in a broad sense. Quantum meruit can have two meanings. It is not just a means of assessing compensation, it can ground a cause of action. Virgo's book sets it out pretty well.

Pkiernan

OP: Short answer, tell him to get f##ked.

Milk & Honey

Quantum meruit cannot ground a cause of action. The cause of action is contract. Quantum might also arise in the context of an action for unjust enrichment where the court is asked to assess the value of some benefit conferred on the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff. This is in the context of an implied trust.

234

Unjust enrichment does not airse solely in the context of an implied trust. A trust might just be the remedy used to reverse the unjust enrichment.