A building contract having been repudiated by the owner after work was

substantially performed, the following issues arose on appeal:

1. whether the builder was entitled to contractual damages only, or whether

it could elect to claim on a quantum meruit;

2. if able to claim on a quantum meruit, whether the contract price operated

as a ceiling on recovery;

3. if there was no ceiling, whether the contract price was the best evidence

of the value of the building owner's enrichment.

The answers given by the Victorian Court of Appeal were:

1. a quantum meruit was available (at [12]);

2. the contract price did not act as a ceiling (at [21] and [24]));

3. the contract price is not necessarily the best evidence of the value of

the benefit received (at [26]ff).

(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2009/141.html)

Michael

====

This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group,

 an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law

 of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in

 the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe,

 send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to

 all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is

 run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.