88 So. 3d 690
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Dr. Chapital owned Chapital Cardiology Clinic (LLC) in Orleans Parish; following Hurricane Katrina Staub provided bids for clinic/home renovations; clinic renovation bid was accepted and completed without issue; Staub submitted additional home renovation bids (106,005.49 and 67,760) which Chapital accepted; from Jan–Jun 2006 Staub sent weekly invoices paid by Chapital, who later stopped, claiming defective workmanship; Staub sued for 105,768.55 and sought quantum meruit for materials; Chapitals reconvened for fraud and defective workmanship damages; district court found no contract existed, awarded Staub 67,000 for materials offset by 17,100 reconvention, totaling 49,900, and denied further reconventional damages; Appellants appealed raising seven assignments of error; appellate court affirmed and denied Staub’s answers/requests for increased damages and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of contract between the parties | Chapitals claim offers/acceptances formed contracts | Staub argues estimates were not contracts; no meeting of the minds | No contract existed; no breach or contract damages |
| Validity of quantum meruit award without contract | Staub entitled to quantum meruit if no contract | If contract existed, quantum meruit improper | Quantum meruit valid where no contract; affirmed $67,000 award |
| Effect of unlicensed contractor on recovery | Unlicensed status voids recovery | Fraudulent licensing not per se bar to quantum meruit | Unlicensed status did not bar quantum meruit/recovery |
| Damages awarded in reconvention | Award should cover all claimed repairs | Many claims unsubstantiated; district court discretionary | Reconciliation of $17,100 reconventional damages affirmed; further damages rejected |
| Interest and costs on quantum meruit recovery | Staub seeks interest from demand date and appeal costs | Contract absent; interest only from final judgment for quantum meruit; costs denied on appeal | Interest from final judgment; Staub’s costs denied; appeal to be affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Found., Inc. v. Kirksey, 40 So.3d 394 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (appellate standard for contract interpretation; manifest error review)
- Worley v. Chandler, 7 So.3d 38 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2009) (meeting of the minds required for contract consent)
- Hanger One MLU, Inc. v. Unopened Succession of James C Rogers, 981 So.2d 175 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2008) (contract formation considerations on offers/acceptances)
- La. Civ. Code art. 1927 (implied from the context), — (—) (consent by offer and acceptance; no formal requirement)