No, the lawyer is stuck with the flat fee. The rule is that if you finish your side of a deal and are just waiting to get paid a set amount, you can only sue for that amount. Here, the lawyer had done basically everything. The long trial was over. Since the job was pretty much done, he can't suddenly ask for more money. He can only get the $300 that was still owed to him under the original $750 contract.

Yes, the lawyer should be able to get what his services were actually worth. The job wasn't really finished. The final judgment wasn't signed, and the lawyer might have had to handle an appeal. By firing the lawyer, the client broke the entire deal. When a contract is broken like that, the person who was fired should be able to ignore the original price and sue for the fair value of all the work they did, which was $5,000.

Yes, the lawyer can ignore the contract price and bill for the reasonable value of his work. This is because the rule for contracts says if one side breaks the deal, the other side can cancel the contract and get paid fairly for the work they already did, even if it's more than the original price. They also get to keep any money already paid for the work done. The court was wrong to say Oliver couldn't get paid more. But since Oliver had almost finished the job when he was fired, he should just get the $300 still owed under the contract, not the $5,000 value of his work.

I agree with the decision to pay the lawyer only the remaining $300 because the contract clearly said so when the work was nearly finished. Even though the main opinion talked about other ways to figure out the fee, I think the simple idea is that sticking to what was written in the contract is the fair way to go, because that agreement shows exactly what was promised.

The court should reverse and say Oliver gets $5,000, which the trial court found was the true value of his work. The evidence shows Campbell completely backed out of the contract by firing Oliver when he was ready and willing to finish the appeal they agreed on. When that happens, a lawyer should get paid based on the real value of their work. Since Oliver is the only one who can testify about what happened, a new trial wouldn't change the result.

When, after partial performance, the innocent party elects to disaffirm or rescind, there is no longer any contract which conclusively fixes a limit upon his recovery; hence, it is said, he may sue upon a quantum meruit as if the special contract had never been made and may recover the reasonable value of the services performed, even though recovery exceeds the …

—election to pursue any of three remedies, to wit: `He may treat the contract as rescinded and may recover upon a quantum meruit so far as he has performed; or he may keep the contract alive, for the benefit of both parties, being at all times ready and able to perform; or, third, he may treat the repudiation as putting an end to the contract for all purposes of performance …

The court concluded plaintiff was not required to offer restoration of the money paid for those prior services in order to rescind, because the services had value independent of the contract, and plaintiff would be entitled to compensation for them without regard to whether the contract remained in effect.

"On the issue of the necessity of restoration or offer to restore the part payment for the services which Campbell had made, the rule applies that such restoration is not necessary where plaintiff would be entitled to it in any event.(See Kales

The remedy of restitution in money is not available to one who has fully performed his part of a contract, if the only part of the agreed exchange for such performance that has not been rendered by the defendant is a sum of money constituting a liquidated debt; but full performance does not make restitution unavailable if any part of the consideration due from the …

Conversely, if A were to deliver the raw materials and В were to breach his promise to pay § 5,000, reimbursement of expenditures would be denied to A; rather, A would be limited to his § 5,005 expectancy even when the value of the raw materials delivered was significantly greater.

This is true whether the attorney's contract is for a fixed or noncontingent fee, or is a contract where the amount of the fee, the liability therefor, or both, are contingent

When, however, the measure of damages sought by the plaintiff is, for some reason, inappropriate, and another measure is proper, the court should grant the proper measure.

The rule referred to applies to the manner of pleading a cause of action to recover upon a claim for services rendered pursuant to a contract; allows a party who has fully performed his part of a contract for the rendition of services, where nothing remains to be done except the payment of money by the other, to sue specially on the contract or generally on the common …

—then, where the recovery was precisely the sum promised by express contract, a count for work and labor done (quantum meruit) would have been entirely suitable.

Yes, the attorney's recovery is limited to the contract price. While the general rule allows a wrongfully discharged employee to rescind the contract and sue for the reasonable value of services rendered, an exception applies when performance is complete. The remedy of restitution (recovering reasonable value) is not available to a party who has fully performed if the other party's only remaining obligation is to pay a liquidated sum of money. Here, Oliver had performed practically all of his services; the trial was over, and all that remained was the signing of the findings and judgment. Because Oliver had, in effect, fully performed, his action is for the balance due on the contract, not for quantum meruit.

No, the attorney should be entitled to recover the reasonable value of his services. The majority misapplies the law by concluding that the services were 'in effect fully performed.' The contract did not limit Oliver's services to the trial; it was for representation until final judgment, which could include post-trial motions or an appeal, which Oliver himself had mentioned to Campbell. Campbell's discharge was a clear repudiation of the entire contract before performance was complete. Therefore, the general rule should apply, allowing Oliver to treat the contract as rescinded and recover the reasonable value of his services, which the trial court found to be $5,000.

Yes, an attorney who is wrongfully discharged before completing contracted services may treat the contract as rescinded and recover the reasonable value of services rendered, even if it exceeds the contract price, without having to restore payments received. This is because the general contract rule allows an injured party to treat a breached contract as rescinded, recover on a quantum meruit basis for the part performed, and keep what was paid for that part. The trial court erred in holding that no recovery could be had in quantum meruit when an express contract fixed the compensation. However, since Oliver had substantially performed when discharged, with only payment due, he should recover the $300 balance owed under the contract rather than the $5,000 reasonable value.

I concur with the court’s judgment awarding the remaining $300 because the language of the contract clearly fixes the fee once the attorney’s performance is substantially complete. While the majority opinion emphasizes the recovery under a quantum meruit theory in light of partial performance, my view diverges by underlining that the express contractual provision should serve as the sole basis for determining the fee. I stress that the parties’ clear agreement bounds the remedy; any departure from the fixed fee would disrupt the contractual balance, because the contract itself was meant to allocate risk and reward by clearly stating the amount due.

The judgment should be reversed with directions to enter judgment for Oliver for $5,000, the reasonable value of his services as found by the trial court. The evidence shows Campbell clearly repudiated and abrogated the contract in its entirety by discharging Oliver when he was willing and able to complete the appeal as contemplated in the agreement. In such circumstances, an attorney is entitled to recover the reasonable value of services rendered. As Oliver is the only living witness to these events, a retrial would not change the outcome.

Oliver v. Campbell

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot