For this claim, Plaintiff must establish that “(1) Plaintiff rendered valuable services to Defendant with a reasonable expectation of being compensated, (2) Defendant knowingly accepted the benefit of the services, and (3) Defendant would be unfairly benefited by the services if no compensation were paid to Plaintiff.” Big Hunt Media, Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., Case No. CIV-18-299-R, 2018 WL 3625842, at *3 (W.D. Okla. July 30, 2018) (citing No. 23.10, OUJI-CIV 2d).
To establish a claim of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must show that “(1) Plaintiff rendered valuable services to Defendant with a reasonable expectation of being compensated, (2) Defendant knowingly accepted the benefit of the services, and (3) Defendant would be unfairly benefited by the services if no compensation were paid to Plaintiff.” Big Hunt Media, Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., No. CIV-18-299-R, 2018 WL 3625842, at *3 (W.D. Okla. July 30, 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To prevail on a claim of quantum meruit, SpecSys must demonstrate: (1) that it rendered valuable services to CMI with a reasonable expectation of being compensated; (2) that CMI knowingly accepted the benefit of the services; and (3) that CMI would be unfairly benefitted by the services if no compensation were provided to SpecSys. See AT & T Corp. v. Matrix Telecom, Inc., No. CIV-05-118-C, 2006 WL 2246452, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 4, 2006); Big Hunt Media, Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., No. CIV-18-299-R, 2018 WL 3625842, at *3 (July 30, 2018). Plaintiffs are correct that SpecSys cannot recover under a quantum meruit theory for performing work within the scope of the PO 21234.