United States v. Algernon Blair, Inc.
479 F.2d 638 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant materially breaches a contract, the non-breaching party is entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the services and materials provided, irrespective of whether they would have suffered a loss had the contract been fully performed.
Facts:
- Algernon Blair, Inc. (Blair) held a prime contract with the United States to construct a naval hospital.
- Blair subcontracted with Coastal Steel Erectors, Inc. (Coastal) to perform steel erection and supply certain equipment, including cranes.
- A dispute arose over payment for the crane rental, which Blair refused to pay.
- Coastal maintained that the subcontract required Blair to pay for the crane rental.
- Due to Blair's refusal to make these payments, Coastal terminated its performance after completing approximately 28% of the work under the subcontract.
- Blair then hired a different subcontractor to complete the steel erection work.
Procedural Posture:
- Coastal Steel Erectors, Inc. brought an action under the Miller Act in the U.S. District Court against Algernon Blair, Inc. and its surety.
- The district court (trial court) found that Blair's refusal to pay for crane use constituted a material breach of the subcontract, justifying Coastal's termination of performance.
- The district court also found that Coastal would have lost more than $37,000 if it had completed the contract.
- Holding that any contract damages must be reduced by the loss Coastal would have incurred, the district court denied any recovery to Coastal.
- Coastal (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a subcontractor who justifiably ceases work due to a prime contractor's material breach recover in quantum meruit the reasonable value of labor and equipment furnished, even if the subcontractor would have lost money by completing the contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Craven, Circuit Judge
Yes. A subcontractor who justifiably ceases work because of the prime contractor's breach may recover in quantum meruit the value of labor and equipment already furnished, irrespective of whether they would have been entitled to recover in a suit on the contract. The court reasoned that quantum meruit is a distinct remedy from contract damages and is based on restitution to prevent unjust enrichment. The breaching party, Blair, retained the benefits of Coastal's labor and equipment without full payment. The purpose of quantum meruit is to restore the non-breaching party by awarding the reasonable value of the performance rendered. This recovery is not limited by the original contract price and, crucially, is not diminished by any loss the non-breaching party might have incurred upon full performance. Therefore, Coastal is entitled to the fair market value of the work it performed, regardless of the fact it was in a losing contract.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial principle in contract remedies, separating restitutionary recovery (quantum meruit) from expectation or reliance damages. It solidifies the rule that a plaintiff in a losing contract can still recover the value of their performance when the other party materially breaches. This prevents the breaching party from being unjustly enriched by taking advantage of the non-breaching party's bad bargain. The decision ensures that the focus of quantum meruit remains on the value of the benefit conferred, not on the hypothetical outcome of the breached contract.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Algernon Blair, Inc.