Nursing Care Services, Inc. v. Dobos, 380 So. 2d 516, 518 (Fla. 1980).
FACTS: Dobos (defendant) was admitted to Boca Raton Community Hospital with an abdominal aneurysm. Dobos's doctor ordered around-the-clock nursing care and transferred Dobos to the care of Nursing Care Services, Inc. (Nursing Care) (plaintiff). Nursing Care provided two weeks of in-hospital care, two days of post-release care, and two weeks of in-home care, for which Dobos was later billed $3,723.90. Dobos refused to pay for Nursing Care’s services, arguing that she never signed a written contract or orally agreed to do so. After a bench trial, Nursing Care was awarded $248 for the two days of post-release care that Dobos or her daughter had authorized. No other compensation …show more content…
However, an injured party may sue under a theory of “contract implied in law” when the other party has received something of value at the expense of the injured party, even when the two parties have never interacted. The elements of an action under a theory of “contract implied in law”, also known as, “unjust enrichment,” “quasi contract” or “quantum meruit,” are as follows: (1) the plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant has knowledge of the benefit; (3) the defendant has accepted or retained the benefit conferred and (4) the circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.” In a construction contract, a subcontractor may recover against the property owner if the subcontractor can establish the following: “that the subcontractor had exhausted all remedies against the general contractor and still remained unpaid and that the owner had not given consideration to any other person for the improvements furnished by the subcontractor.” In the current matter, Equity did not establish that Commerce had not given consideration for Equity’s work. Therefore, Equity failed to meet its burden of proof. Moreover, when Commerce attempted to establish that it had paid over $64,000 directly to subcontractors for …show more content…
The contract provided for a $10,000 fixed fee, plus a contingency fee equal to fifty percent of the recovery. Levin discharged Rosenberg without cause, hired a new attorney, and settled for $500,000. Rosenberg sued to recover fees for services rendered in quantum meruit. The trial court awarded Rosenberg $55,000 on the basis of quantum meruit. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that quantum meruit was the appropriate basis for recovery, but stated that the award cannot exceed the maximum fee set in the contract. Consequently, the court of appeals lowered the award to $10,000. Rosenberg appealed.
ISSUE: In both fixed and contingency cases, is a discharged lawyer entitled to the reasonable value of his services on the basis of quantim meruit limited to the maximum fee set in the