The court of appeal then found plaintiff entitled to the reasonable value of the engineering services, subject to the equitable limitation which attends the actio de in rem verso, (i.e., no more to plaintiff than his impoverishmentthe actual value of materials and labor furnished including general overhead and reasonable profits and in no event more than defendant's enrichment.) Then, deciding that CBM by virtue of its contractual "cap" with RTKL was not enriched by the full $78,613.00 of services, because CBM was not fully recompensated by RTKL for the services performed by Morphy, they blessed the equitable remedy forged for the parties by the district court. Morphy can only be compensated under a theory of unjust enrichment or quantum meruit." The court applied the principles governing actio de in rem verso, finding an enrichment of CBM, an impoverishment to Morphy, connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment, an absence of justification or cause (no legal cause supports the enrichment), and no other remedy at law (subsidiarity). 2d 1223 (La.App.1988), concluding that "without a contract. The district court judgment, over plaintiff's exception to the report, adopted the commissioner's recommendation and cast CBM for only $45,000.00 in favor of Morphy. The Civil District Court Commissioner, consistent with the views of all parties, ascertained that Morphy was a "subcontractor" to CBM, although working without a "contract." Finding no contractual theory of recovery, the Commissioner further ascertained that an equitable award "under quasi-contract or de in rem verso, an action in unjust enrichment" was in order, and determined that plaintiff should be awarded against CBM only $45,000, rather than the $78,613.00 Morphy had invoiced, by apportioning the RTKL-CBM "cap" as regards the work Morphy performed. While CBM and Morphy verbally agreed that Morphy should do part of the work *571 CBM had obligated itself to perform for RTKLand indeed Morphy did ably perform all such servicesCBM and Morphy did not execute a written contract in advance of performance, or otherwise, specifically agreeing to the method or terms of payment for such engineering services. The matter before this court concerns the claim of Morphy (the sub-subcontractor) against CBM (the subcontractor) for $78,613.00, per invoices calculated on an hourly basis for engineering services admittedly performed by Morphy. (hereinafter referred to as Morphy), design and perform engineering services for the foundation and first floor of the structure. CBM and RTKL entered into a formal subcontract agreement on Novemwhich included this $297,511 "cap".ĬBM, responsive to the wishes of the owner, Canal Place, agreed to have the plaintiff in this case, Morphy, Makofsky and Masson, Inc. As indicated by letters from CBM to RTKL dated Septemand Septemrespectively, CBM agreed to perform the structural engineering services subject to a "cap" of $297,511. (CBM) which obligated CBM to perform all structural engineering services, including foundation engineering and design services for the Canal Place project. RTKL thereafter negotiated a subcontract agreement with CBM Engineers, Inc. Lawrence Orlansky, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittman & Hutchinson, Gordon Wilson, Jr., Friend, Wilson & Draper, Victor Stilwell, Jr., Terrence Brennan, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, New Orleans, for respondent.Ĭanal Place, as owner, entered into an architectural contract with RTKL, A Professional Architectural Corporation, which obligated RTKL to provide all necessary architectural, engineering, and consulting services required by Canal Place in connection with the construction of Canal Place Phase II, a retail mall and hotel complex located in downtown New Orleans. Freeman, Jr., Satterlee, Mestayer & Freeman, New Orleans, for applicants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |