However, our Supreme Court has long recognized that these two claims may be pleaded in the alternative and that a plaintiff who has performed under a contract may elect between either of these two remedies. See Nyman v B S Chopin, Inc, 255 Mich 442, 444-445; 238 NW 195 (1931); see also Corman Co v L.A Young Industries, 231 Mich 628, 630; 204 NW 746 (1925). "The general rule is well settled that a party to a contract, where labor is to be performed, upon the breach of that contract by the other party, has two remedies open to him.

There was no evidence of contract price, but there was evidence of reasonable value, so the court held that she could recover under the common counts. He was right in so holding. Corman Co. v. L. A. Young Industries, 231 Mich. 628; Brandt v. Munz, 250 Mich. 172. On the question of the existence of a contract between the parties, it is claimed by the defendants that the finding of the court is against the great weight of the evidence.

He may sue upon the contract, and on a special count for services, labor, and expense incurred from which he has derived no benefit. Where he makes no election, a verdict may be rendered on either count. Corman Co. v. L.A. Young Industries, 231 Mich. 628, 630. Should he sue upon quantum meruit, the measure of damages is what the services are reasonably worth, notwithstanding that such amount may be in excess of the amount fixed by the contract. Hemminger v. Western Assurance Co., 95 Mich. 355.