Facto v. Pantagis - 390 N.J. Super. 227, 915 A.2d 59 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007)

Rule:

Where an express contract for work or services is abortive for impossibility, or invalidity for other reasons, the plaintiff not being at fault may have recovery for the value of his services. The measure of damages is the benefit conferred upon the party against whom the quantum meruit claim is asserted.

Facts:

Plaintiffs contracted with defendant Snuffy Pantagis Ent., Inc., t/a Pantagis Renaissance, a banquet hall in Scotch Plains, for a wedding reception for 150 people. The total contract price was $ 10,578, all of which was to be paid in advance. The contract contained a force majeure clause, which stated that Snuffy's will be excused from performance under the contract if it was prevented from doing so by an act of God, or other unforeseen events or circumstances. Less than forty-five minutes after the reception began, a power failure occurred, causing all the lights, except emergency lights, to go out and the air conditioning system to shut off. Shortly after 9 p.m., there was some kind of altercation between one of plaintiffs' guests and an employee of the Pantagis Renaissance. As a result, the banquet hall called the police, and asked the latter to evacuate the facility. Plaintiffs subsequently brought the present breach of contract action seeking recovery of the $ 10,578 they prepaid for the wedding reception plus the $ 6,000 paid to the band, $ 3,810 paid to the wedding photographer and $ 3,242.09 paid to the videographer. Plaintiffs' complaint also asserted a negligence claim. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim was barred by the force majeure clause of the contract because the power failure was an "unusual extraordinary unexpected circumstance" that could not be avoided by "reasonable human foresight." The trial court further dismissed plaintiffs' negligence claim on the ground there was no evidence the Pantagis Renaissance was responsible for the power failure or failed to take reasonable measures to respond to this unforeseen circumstance. Plaintiffs appealed.

Issue:

1. Under the circumstances, did defendant breach its contract with the plaintiffs?
2. Were plaintiffs entitled to recover the amount they paid to the defendant?

Answer:

1) No. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court first noted that plaintiffs’ arguments in support of their negligence claim were clearly without merit and did not warrant extended discussion. With respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim, the Court agreed with the trial court's conclusion that the power failure relieved defendant of the obligation to provide plaintiffs with a wedding reception and, therefore, defendant's failure to perform the contract due to the absence of electricity did not constitute a breach. However, the Court ruled that the defendant's inability to perform the contract also relieved plaintiffs of their obligation to pay the contract price. Consequently, plaintiffs were entitled to recover the $ 10,578 they prepaid defendant, less the value of the services they did receive.