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 Mississippi, quantum meruit is a legal doctrine that allows an individual or entity to recover compensation for services rendered or materials provided when there is no existing contract, or when a contract is unenforceable. To succeed in a quantum meruit claim, the claimant must demonstrate that they provided valuable services or materials to the defendant, that the defendant accepted and benefited from these services or materials, and that the defendant was aware that the claimant expected payment. While a valid and enforceable contract typically precludes recovery under quantum meruit, Mississippi law permits a party to plead in the alternative, meaning they can assert claims under both contract and quasi-contract theories. This does not negate the applicability of an arbitration clause if one exists in the contract, as such clauses often require that all disputes arising from the agreement be resolved through arbitration. Therefore, even when pleading in the alternative, the parties may still be bound to resolve their disputes through the arbitration process if the contract stipulates as such.