364 N.C. 577
N.C.2010Background
- Medlin and Medlin Construction sued Harrises for declaratory relief, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive trust related to building a house.
- Defendants asserted Medlin individually contracted to build the house and that Medlin lacked a licensed contractor, rendering the contract unenforceable.
- The cost‑plus contract capped costs and set Medlin’s profit; Medlin signed the contract personally, not in the partnership name.
- Plaintiffs alleged the partnership acted through Medlin, obtained permits, paid for materials, and performed construction.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Court of Appeals initially reversed, then affirmed on rehearing.
- This Court held that a licensed partnership contract executed by a partner involves the partnership, precluding quantum meruit recovery by the partnership absent lack of authority or ratification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether express contract precludes quantum meruit recovery | Medlin Construction not a party to the contract; no express contract with partnership | Contract executed by partner binding the partnership; quantum meruit unavailable | Yes; contract binds the partnership; quantum meruit barred. |
| Whether Medlin acted within partnership authority | Medlin Construction reasonably believed it could construct under partnership authority | Medlin acted as partner; authority presumed; partnership liable | No; undisputed evidence shows partnership authority; contract binding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryan Builders Supply v. Midyette, 274 N.C. 264 (1968) (unlicensed contractor cannot enforce contract or recover in quantum meruit)
- Vetco Concrete Co. v. Troy Lumber Co., 256 N.C. 709 (1962) (unlicensed contractor limitations on enforcement and quantum meruit)
- Brewer v. Elks, 260 N.C. 470 (1963) (partner acting for partnership; authority to bind partnership required)
- Beacon Homes, Inc. v. Holt, 266 N.C. 467 (1966) (recovery based on unjust enrichment distinguished from mistake of fact case)