law-quantum-meruit-theory
Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit Mutually Exclusive, but does existence of
contract have to be established to trigger the exclusivity?
Express Contract Precludes Quantum Meruit Claim
Second, because Citibank proved the existence of an express contract, Citibank cannot recover
under the theory of quantum meruit. "Quantum meruit is an equitable theory of recovery which is
based on an implied agreement to pay for benefits received." Heldenfels Bros., Inc. v. City of
Corpus Christi, 832 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Tex. 1992). The doctrine of quantum meruit requires the
plaintiff to establish: "1) valuable services and/or materials were furnished, 2) to the party sought to
be charged, 3) which were accepted by the party sought to be charged, and 4) under such
circumstances as reasonably notified the recipient that the plaintiff, in performing, expected to be
paid by the recipient." Id. However, the summary judgment evidence establishes the existence of a
contract between the parties. In general, recovery under quantum meruit is limited to only when
there is no express contract covering the services or materials furnished. Vortt Exploration Co. v.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 787 S.W.2d 942, 944 (Tex. 1990); Academy Corp. v. Interior Buildout &
Turnkey Constr., Inc., 21 S.W.3d 732, 741 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Because the summary judgment evidence established the existence of a contract as a matter of
law, Citibank cannot recover under the theory of quantum meruit.
Tully v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 173 S.W.3d 212, 216, No. 06-05-00027-CV (Tex.App.-
Texarkana 2005, no pet.)
Since the summary judgment evidence proved the existence of a contract, Citibank was
not entitled to collect on its quantum meruit theory