Morphy, Makofsky & Masson, Inc. v. Canal Place 2000 - 538 So. 2d 569 (La. 1989)

Rule:

Where there is a contract for the rendering of services but there is no agreement for the price or compensation, a plaintiff is entitled to be paid for the services rendered under the principles of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1965.

Facts:

Canal Place, as owner, entered into an architectural contract with RTKL, A Professional Architectural Corporation, which obligated RTKL to provide all necessary architectural, engineering, and consulting services required by Canal Place in connection with the construction of a retail mall and hotel complex. RTKL thereafter negotiated a subcontract agreement with CBM Engineers, Inc. (CBM) which obligated CBM to perform all structural engineering services, including foundation engineering and design services for the project. Subsequently, CBM, responsive to the wishes of the owner, agreed to have the plaintiff, Morphy, Makofsky and Masson, Inc., design and perform engineering services for the foundation and first floor of the structure. While CBM and Morphy verbally agreed that Morphy should do part of the work, CBM had obligated itself to perform for RTKL -- and indeed Morphy did ably perform all such services -- CBM and Morphy did not execute a written contract in advance of performance, or otherwise, specifically agreeing to the method or terms of payment for such engineering services. The Civil District Court Commissioner, consistent with the views of all parties, ascertained that Morphy was a "subcontractor" to CBM, although working without a "contract." Finding no contractual theory of recovery, the Commissioner further ascertained that an equitable award "under quasi-contract or de in rem verso, an action in unjust enrichment" was in order, and determined that plaintiff should be awarded against CBM only $ 45,000, rather than the $ 78,613.00 Morphy had invoiced, by apportioning the RTKL-CBM "cap" as regards the work Morphy performed. The district court judgment adopted the commissioner’s recommendation. The appellate court affirmed. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was the plaintiff entitled to recover the full sum of $ 78,613 for the foundation design and engineering services? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the plaintiff had a substantive claim in contract under La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1779, which precluded the application of actio de in rem verso. There was a valid oral contract. At the very least, an implied in fact contract existed, and the plaintiff was entitled to be paid for its services under principles of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 1965. The court discussed the meaning of "quantum meruit," and concluded that, since "actio de in rem verso" was not the appropriate substantive law basis for recovery, the "quantum meruit" to which plaintiff was entitled was merely the reasonable value of services, which it determined to be the amount invoiced. Accordingly, the judgments of the district court and the court of appeal were affirmed in part and amended. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff in the full sum of $ 78,613.