Britton v. Turner

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1834 · Contracts

ContractsQuantum meruitPart performanceRestitutionentire contractspecial contractquantum meruitpart performance

Facts

The plaintiff began work under a special contract to labor for the defendant for one year for $120. He worked only part of the year, about nine and a half months, and voluntarily failed to complete the contract. Because he did not complete the full term, he could not recover the contract price under the special agreement. The jury found that the labor performed had value to the defendant, and the defendant relied on the plaintiff's breach as a defense without showing damages for that breach.

Issue

Can a laborer who voluntarily abandons an entire one-year employment contract before completion nevertheless recover in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the labor actually performed when the employer has received and retained the benefit of that labor? If so, must that recovery be reduced by the employer's damages from the breach?

Rule

When a party agrees by special contract to perform labor or furnish materials for payment only upon full performance, he cannot recover on the contract unless he earns the money according to its terms. But if he fails to complete performance and the other party nevertheless receives and retains a benefit from the partial performance, the law implies a promise to pay the reasonable worth of the net benefit actually received, limited by the contract price and reduced by the damages caused by the breach. If the employer has received no net beneficial service after deducting those damages, the plaintiff cannot recover.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Jonah Mercer agreed in writing to work for Elm Harbor Milling for 12 months in exchange for a lump-sum payment of $48,000 due only at the end of the year. After 10 months, Jonah quit without justification. The company had benefited from his work and finished the remaining 2 months with a replacement at modest extra cost.

Which is the strongest statement of Jonah's right to recover?

Explanation. The majority held that a worker who fails to complete an entire labor contract cannot recover on the special contract itself because payment was conditioned on full performance. But if the employer actually received and retained beneficial services, the law implies a promise to pay the reasonable worth of the net benefit received, after deducting damages caused by the breach, and recovery may not exceed the contract price.