City of Bessemer v. Foreman

• Decision Date: 26 April 1996
• Parties: CITY OF BESSEMER v. C.V. FOREMAN, Sr., et al. 1941887.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 759

678 So.2d 759

CITY OF BESSEMER v. C.V. FOREMAN, Sr., et al.

1941887.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 26, 1996.

Jeffery V. Hood, Bessemer, for Appellant.

Alex W. Newton and Bruce J. McKee of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, Clifford W. Hardy, Bessemer, for Appellees.

BUTTS, Justice.

The City of Bessemer appeals from an order granting the plaintiff a new trial in a breach of contract action.

I.

C.V. Foreman, Sr., individually and doing business as Foreman Sanitation Services, sued the City of Bessemer, seeking damages for the alleged breach of several contracts he claimed to have with the City for municipal garbage pickup. Foreman alleged that he had executed two written contracts with the City to provide garbage pickup in certain areas; that only the first of the two written contracts was valid; and that the City breached this contract by underpaying the agreed-upon fee. In the alternative to a recovery on the written contracts, Foreman sought a quantum meruit recovery for the value of his garbage pickup services. Foreman also alleged that he had an oral contract with the City that was in effect from October 1986 until the City changed its form of government in January 1993, and that under that oral contract the City was to set aside $1200 monthly in a pension fund for him, in return for his garbage pickup services in the downtown area. He alleged a breach of that contract.

The City counterclaimed, arguing that the first written contract was invalid and that under the second written contract, which it claimed was valid, it had actually overpaid Foreman and was entitled to a repayment of $22,335. The City further alleged that the terms for Foreman's pickup of downtown garbage were included within this second contract, and that it had had no oral contract to retain a pension fund in return for this service.

The jury returned a verdict for the City on Foreman's claim alleging breach of an oral contract. It awarded Foreman $145,860 on the theory of quantum meruit, apparently finding that neither written contract was valid. However, the jury also returned a verdict for the City on its counterclaim alleging overpayment under the second written contract, awarding the City $22,335; thus, in regard to the counterclaim the jury implicitly found that the second contract was valid. Foreman moved for a new trial, alleging an inconsistency of the verdicts; the trial court granted the motion.

II.

Where a jury verdict is the result of confusion or is inconsistent in law, the trial court should grant a new trial; a new trial is necessary because, once the jury is dismissed, any attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies in a verdict must be based on mere speculation about the jury's intent. A.L. Williams & Associates, Inc. v. Williams, 517 So.2d 596 (Ala.1987).

The trial court gave the following jury charges as to the theory of quantum meruit:

"Quantum meruit is founded upon an implied promise on the part of the defendant to pay the plaintiff as much as he reasonably deserves for his labor and service. The amount of such damages are to be determined by you from the evidence you heard.

"....

"The plaintiff ... has pled quantum meruit for the services called for in the October of 1989 [contract]. If you find that there was no written contract between the parties but that the plaintiff provided the services that were contemplated, then if you find that the reasonable value of these services exceeds the amount paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, you may award him damages in whatever amount you determine the value of his services exceeded the amount paid.

"The city has filed a counterclaim in this matter. It claims that the plaintiff was overpaid under the contract it offered as the true contract. If you are reasonably satisfied that the city's contract is the true contract and that the defendant overpaid the plaintiff upon his request when he knew, that is, when the plaintiff knew that this amount was not due him, then you may enter judgment for...