Quantum meruit is an equitable remedy that is based upon the promise implied by law to pay for beneficial services rendered and knowingly accepted. The purpose of this common law doctrine is to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched by retaining the benefits of the performance without paying anything in return.

To recover under a quantum meruit claim, a claimant must prove that: (1) valuable services were rendered or materials furnished; (2) for the person sought to be charged; (3) those services and materials were accepted by the person sought to be charged, and were used and enjoyed by him; and (4) the person sought to be charged was reasonably notified that the plaintiff performing such services or furnishing such materials was expecting to be paid by the person sought to be charged.

Pleading In The Alternative

A party generally cannot recover under a quantum meruit claim when there is a valid contract covering the services or materials furnished. The measure of damages for recovery under a quantum meruit theory is the reasonable value of the work performed and the materials furnished.

But a party to a contract may seek alternative relief under both contract and quasi-contract theories. And pleading in the alternative does not defeat the effect of an arbitration clause that broadly covers all disputes between signatories that arise out of the underlying agreement.

In Texas, quantum meruit is recognized as an equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment when one party benefits from another's services or materials without paying for them. To succeed in a quantum meruit claim, the claimant must demonstrate that valuable services or materials were provided, they were for the person being charged, the services or materials were accepted and used by that person, and the person was notified that payment was expected. While a valid contract typically precludes recovery under quantum meruit, Texas law allows for pleading in the alternative, meaning a party can seek relief under both contract and quasi-contract theories. This does not negate the effect of an arbitration clause in a contract, which can still mandate arbitration for disputes arising from the agreement, even when alternative pleadings are made.