Opinion
July 15, 1975.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Page 892
No appearance for plaintiff-appellee.
Atler, Zall & Haligman, P.C., Jack Silver, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
SMITH, Judge.
Pursuant to contract plaintiff agreed to furnish defendant with services consisting of feasibility studies, evaluation work, and preliminary plans for a proposed real estate development project. Phase I of this contract was completed by plaintiff and paid for by defendant. Phase II which included, among other things, the services of an architect who was employed by plaintiff to produce certain architectural drawings called 'loan sets' was commenced but was never completed. Defendant received the 'loan sets', but refused to pay plaintiff for the services of the architect, and plaintiff instituted this action.
The trial court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a contractual relationship between plaintiff and defendant and that, pursuant to this relationship, the architectural work was performed at the request of plaintiff for the use and benefit of defendant. Based upon plaintiff's theory of Quantum meruit, the trial court concluded, in essence, that even though phase II had not been completed, there was an implied contract on the part of defendant to pay plaintiff the reasonable value of the architectural services rendered in preparing these drawings, inasmuch as defendant received and used the 'loan sets' to his own advantage. The trial court then awarded plaintiff the reasonable value of the relevant architectural fees, to be held by plaintiff for the use and benefit of the architect. Defendant appeals. We affirm.
Defendant first alleges that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant received any benefit from the architectural services. We need only state that this was a question of fact and its resolution by the court was supported by the evidence. Zambruk v. Perlmutter 3rd Generation Builders, Inc., 32 Colo.App. 276, 510 P.2d 472.
Defendant next alleges that since plaintiff had not itself rendered the architectural services, had not yet paid for them, and was not the assignee of the architect of in any way in privity with the architect, it was not entitled to recovery under Quantum meruit. We disagree.
Where, as here, a party accepts work being performed for his benefit and by his actions indicates that he ratifies the employment of the person rendering the services, there arises an implied promise to pay to the person who furnishes them the reasonable value of those services. Larson v. American National Bank, 174 Colo. 424, 484 P.2d 1230; Emblen v. Bicksler, 34 Colo. 496, 83 P. 636.
The evidence disclosed that plaintiff had contracted with the architect and was therefore liable to him for the reasonable value of his services. This legal obligation was recognized by the trial court in its judgment requiring that plaintiff retain the award for the use and benefit of the architect. Since plaintiff contracted to provide to defendant the services performed by the architect, since defendant accepted the benefit of those services, and since plaintiff was contractually liable to the architect, plaintiff had standing to sue defendant for payment under the theory of Quantum meruit, and the trial court properly provided for the disposition of the damages awarded.
Judgment affirmed.
ENOCH and KELLY, JJ., concur.