Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti

30 Citing cases

  1. U.S. Accu-Measurements, LLC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

    Civ. No. 10-5011 (KM) (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Discussing Power-Matics

    Where the defendant fails or refuses to perform his contract and is justified therein by the plaintiff's own breach of duty or non-performance of a condition, but the plaintiff has rendered a part performance under the contract that is a net benefit to the defendant, the plaintiff can get judgment for the amount of such benefit...if [] the defendant, with knowledge that the plaintiffs breach of duty of duty or non-performance of condition has occurred...assents to the rendition of the part performance, or accepts the benefit of it, or retains property received although its return in specie is still not unreasonably difficult or injurious.Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 306-07 (App. Div. 1963) (citing 2 Restatement, Contracts, § 357, p. 623). See also Kutzin v. Pimie, 124 N.J. 500, 515-516 (N.J. 1991).

  2. In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig.

    339 F. Supp. 3d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that allegation of lost time established injury for purposes of GBL § 349

    Citing Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti , 79 N.J.Super. 294, 191 A.2d 483, 490 (App. Div. 1963), Plaintiffs argue that "the existence of an express contract is not an outright bar to an unjust enrichment claim" under New Jersey law. (Pls.' Br. 32).

  3. Kutzin v. Pirnie

    124 N.J. 500 (N.J. 1991)   Cited 53 times
    Adopting Section 374 of Second Restatement to determine damages

    (3) The measure of the defendant's benefit from the plaintiff's part performance is the amount by which he has been enriched as a result of such performance unless the facts are those stated in Subsection (1b), in which case it is the price fixed by the contract for such part performance, or, if no price is so fixed, a ratable proportion of the total contract price. That section was adopted by the Appellate Division in Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 306-07, 191 A.2d 483 (1963), in which the plaintiff sought recovery for its part performance after it had breached a contract to build a porch. The court concluded that the "plaintiff should have been allowed to offer evidence to establish, if it could, a right to recover the amount of the benefit it conferred upon defendants in excess of the harm it had caused defendants by its own breach — rather than be compelled to suffer a complete forfeiture."

  4. Suburban Transfer Serv. v. Beech Holdings, Inc.

    716 F.2d 220 (3d Cir. 1983)   Cited 100 times
    Finding that, under New Jersey law, constructive or quasi-contractual remedy "to prevent unjust enrichment or unconscionable benefit ... will not be imposed ... if an express contract exists concerning the identical subject matter."

    The parties are bound by their agreement, and there is no ground for implying a promise as long as a valid unrescinded contract governs the rights of the parties. Van Orman v. American Insurance Co., 680 F.2d 301, 310-11 (3d Cir. 1982); C.B. Snyder Realty Co. v. National Newark Essex Banking Co., 14 N.J. 146, 162-63, 101 A.2d 544, 553 (1953); Moser v. Milner Hotels, Inc., 6 N.J. 278, 280, 78 A.2d 393, 394 (1951). But see Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 306, 191 A.2d 483, 490 (1963). Under those principles Transfer's claim for quasi-contractual liability based on unjust enrichment must fail as a matter of law.

  5. Van Orman v. American Ins. Co.

    680 F.2d 301 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 204 times
    Holding that "recovery under unjust enrichment may not be had when a valid, unrescinded contract governs the rights of the parties"

    The court relied on a passage from a decision of the New Jersey Appellate Division stating that " quasi-contractual obligations arise independently of the parties' intent or the existence of a contract." Power-Matics Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 306, 191 A.2d 483 (App. Div. 196 3). We believe the district court's reliance on this statement was misplaced and that New Jersey law is to the contrary: recovery under unjust enrichment may not be had when a valid, unrescinded contract governs the rights of the parties.

  6. Sicula Oceanica v. Wilmar Marine Eng. Sales

    413 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1969)   Cited 28 times
    In Sicula Oceanica, the Fifth Circuit applied to a maritime contract the general principle of contract law that a supervening discovery of facts that makes the promised performance more difficult, or the occurrence of subsequent events having this effect, if they are such as to be commonly foreseeable and in contemplation, usually does not discharge the contractor from his duty.

    Restatement, Contracts § 357(f). See also 5 Williston on Contracts § 1475, notes 2, 5 (Rev.Ed.); Dermott v. Jones, 23 How. 220, 64 U.S. 220, 233, 16 L.Ed. 442; American Surety Co. of New York v. United States, 9 Cir. 1966, 368 F.2d 475; Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 1963, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 191 A.2d 483. Here Siosa suffered damages but benefitted from Wilmar's partial performance of the contract. In these circumstances the equities require that the damages should be off-set against the value of the benefit to Siosa.

  7. JD Glob. Sales, Inc. v. Jem D Int'l Partners, LP

    2:21-cv-19943 (BRM) (MAH) (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    While liability based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit cannot be imposed if an express contract exists, pleading claims in the alternative is appropriate here where Red Sun Farms challenges the existence of the agreement. See Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J.Super. 294, 304-05 (App. Div. 1963) (“[E]xpress contract and quantum meruit may be alternatively pleaded if the pre-requisite rescission has also been pleaded or is unnecessary because the alleged express contract was actually void or did not exist.”

  8. Dutton Road Associates LP v. Sunray Solar, Inc.

    Civil Action No.: 10-5478 (FLW) (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2011)   Cited 4 times

    The only conflict between pleading and proving an express contract and Quantum meruit simultaneously occurs in the absence of a rescission." Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J.Super. 294, 305 (App. Div. 1963) (citing Moser v. Milner Hotels, Inc., 6 N.J. 278, 280-281 (1951) and C. B. Snyder Realty Co. v. Nat., Inc., Banking Co., 14 N.J. 146, 162-163 (1952)). Relying on this strain of cases

  9. DES LAURIERS MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS, v. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP

    Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-0919 (FLW) (D.N.J. Jun. 9, 2009)

    Accordingly, the Court will consider whether Plaintiff's unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims survive as a matter of law. See Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294, 304-05 (App.Div. 1963) (stating that "express contract and quantum meruit may be alternatively pleaded if the prerequisite rescission has also been pleaded or is unnecessary because the alleged express contract was actually void or did not exist."). This quasi-contractual theory has been applied to municipality contracts where the court held that the underlying contract was not properly executed.

  10. Avatar Business Connection, Inc. v. Uni-Marts, Inc.

    Civil Action. No. 04-1866 (JBS) (D.N.J. Jun. 30, 2006)   Cited 8 times
    Disallowing quantum meruit theory where plaintiff entered into brokerage agreement charging it to market defendant's business assets in return for a commission, and where defendant restructured transaction set up by plaintiff so as to deprive plaintiff of commission

    Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 128 N.J. 427, 437-39 (1992) (a real estate agent who was the "procuring cause" of a sale was entitled to the reasonable value of his services rendered under the theory of quantum meruit);see also Conklin v. Kruger, 79 N.J.L. 326, 328 (Sup.Ct. 1910) ("It is well settled that where one performs services for another at his request, but without any agreement or understanding as to wages or remuneration, the law implies a promise on the part of the party requesting the services to pay a just and reasonable compensation. . . .") However, under New Jersey law, the doctrine of quantum meruit only applies if there is no contract between the parties that addresses the identical subject matter of the plaintiff's quantum meruit claim. See Power-Matics, Inc. v. Ligotti, 79 N.J. Super. 294 (App.Div. 1963); Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp.2d 424 (D.N.J. 1999). Indeed, the Court of Appeals has made it clear that a plaintiff may not bring a claim under a quasi-contract theory of liability (such asquantum meruit or unjust enrichment) when the plaintiff and defendant are parties to an express and valid agreement concerning the identical subject matter as plaintiff's claim.