25-0297
Tex.Jun 19, 2026Background
- Sellers supplied frozen meat products to Buyer from July to November 2018, and Buyer did not pay all invoices. 1
- Buyer claimed some meat was spoiled; Sellers claimed Buyer simply stopped paying and invented the spoilage excuse later. 2
- At trial, the jury found Buyer did not fail to comply with the payment agreements, but it awarded Sellers quantum meruit damages and zero reasonable attorney's fees. 3
- The trial court entered judgment for Sellers on quantum meruit, awarded damages and attorney's fees, and the court of appeals affirmed. 4
- The Texas Supreme Court held the meat shipments were covered by express agreements, barring quantum meruit recovery and attorney's fees. 5
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantum meruit barred by express contracts? 6 | Sellers said some meat was outside any agreement or covered only by changed invoice terms. | Buyer said all shipments were covered by express agreements, so quantum meruit was unavailable. | Quantum meruit was barred because express agreements covered the meat shipments. 7 |
| Attorney's fees recoverable after quantum meruit fails? 8 | Sellers sought fees under Section 38.001 after winning damages below. | Buyer said Sellers had no recoverable claim and the jury found zero reasonable fees. | Fees were not recoverable because Sellers did not prevail on a fee-shifting claim. 9 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, 544 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2018) (quantum meruit requires services accepted and notified expectation of payment; express contracts bar covered claims 10)
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2005) (quantum meruit is unavailable when a valid contract covers the services or materials furnished 11)
- Truly v. Austin, 74 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1988) (quantum meruit aims to prevent unjust enrichment 12)
- Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2000) (quantum meruit is an implied-law obligation, not a contract, and contract existence issues should be secured in the charge 13)
- Woodward v. Southwestern States, Inc., 384 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. 1964) (express-contract and quantum meruit recovery are inconsistent when the subject matter is covered 14)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for JNOV/legal sufficiency review 15)
- Houston Medical Testing Services, Inc. v. Mintzer, 417 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (JNOV proper when a jury-found theory is barred as a matter of law 16)
- Green International, Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. 1997) (attorney's fees require a recoverable claim and damages 17)
- Ventling v. Johnson, 466 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2015) (trial courts lack discretion to deny mandatory attorney's fees when properly proven 18)
- Smith v. Patrick W.Y. Tam Trust, 296 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. 2009) (discusses attorney's fees when jury awards none despite some recovery 19)