Commerce Partnership

8098 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. EQUITY CONTRACTING CO., INC., 695 So.2d 383 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was the owner of an office building. D contracted with World Properties, Inc., to perform improvements on its property. P was the stucco and surfacing subcontractor for the job. D was aware of P's work. P completely performed its subcontract, and the reasonable value of its work was $17,100. D failed to pay the general contractor the full amounts due for the job. The general contractor did not pay P. P sued D in quantum meruit claiming that D was unjustly enriched because it had accepted P's services without paying any entity for them. D asserted that it had paid the general contractor in full. P's president testified that his company had contracted with the general contractor for $17,100. He indicated that at the start of the job he expected payment only from the general contractor and not from D. When finished, P got a punch list of remedial work. P's president asked for at least partial payment from D. Having received no payment, P did not complete the punch list. P brought suit against the general contractor, who declared bankruptcy. P found no evidence regarding D's payments to the general contractor under the construction contract or any other party for work covered by the contract. D moved for an involuntary dismissal, arguing that the evidence did not establish a contract implied in fact. D contends that the term 'quantum meruit' was synonymous with a contract implied in fact. The trial court denied the motion. P asserted that it had established a claim for quantum meruit, which it interpreted to mean unjust enrichment. D then moved to reopen the trial and presented evidence of its payments to subs and the general contractor. D's witness testified that the contract price it had negotiated with the general contractor for the improvements was $256,894. He identified three payments totaling $223,065.04 that D made to the general contractor. D has made a final settlement with the general contractor. D also sought to introduce evidence that it had paid $64,097 directly to three subcontractors who had performed work on the building, who were not paid by the general contractor, and who had perfected mechanics' liens. The trial court sustained P's objection to this testimony on the ground of relevance. P got a judgment for $17,100, and D appealed.