Forbes v. Pillmon

Decision Date05 June 1974
Docket NumberNo. 746DC366,746DC366
CitationForbes v. Pillmon, 205 S.E.2d 600, 22 N.C.App. 69 (N.C. App. 1974)
PartiesJ. M. FORBES, t/a Forbes' Florist-Aluminum Products-Realtor v. Sam PILLMON, t/a Chowan Beach.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Cherry, Cherry & Flythe by Ernest L. Evans, Ahoskie, for defendant appellant.

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant contends that the court erred in its instructions on Quantum meruit as the measure of damages. Defendant tendered written instructions to the court which it declined to adopt. The court charged, in part, that the measure of damages

'is the reasonable value of the labor and materials accepted and appropriated by Mr. Pillmon and these alone for which Mr. Pillmon must pay under the theory of quantum meruit unless you find that Mr. Pillmon, through his own actions, prevented Mr. Forbes from completing the building and, in this instance, the contention is installing the doors. I say that if you find that Mr. Pillmon prevented him from installing the doors, then it would be your duty to consider whether or not Mr. Forbes should be compensated and paid for the doors. . . .'

While the first portion of the above quoted instructions accurately defines the limits of Quantum meruit recovery, that portion relating to the effect of the uninstalled doors on the measure of damages is incorrect. Plaintiff's right of recovery in this case is not bottomed on the existence of an express contract. Defendant was thus under no obligation to accept the doors. Plaintiff's recovery must be limited to the reasonable value of the goods and services accepted and appropriated by defendant. Helicopter Corp. v. Realty Co., 263 N.C. 139, 139 S.E.2d 362; Thormer v. Mail Order Co., 241 N.C. 249, 85 S.E.2d 140. The purpose of allowing Quantum meruit recovery is the prevention of unjust...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • JDH Capital, LLC v. Flowers
    • United States
    • Superior Court of North Carolina
    • March 13, 2009
    ...a defendant. See MacEachern v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 41 N.C.App. 73, 76, 254 S.E.2d 263, 266 (1979); see also Forbes v. Pillmon, 22 N.C.App. 69, 70, 205 S.E.2d 600, 601 (1974); Stout v. Smith, 4 N.C.App. 81, 84, 165 S.E.2d 789, 792 {52} Plaintiff's first approach to damages was to claim, in......
  • Harrell v. W. B. Lloyd Const. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1979
    ...the services accepted and appropriated by the defendant. Turner v. Furniture Co., 217 N.C. 695, 9 S.E.2d 379 (1940); Forbes v. Pillmon, 22 N.C.App. 69, 205 S.E.2d 600 (1974). The general rule is that when there is no agreement as to the amount of compensation to be paid for services, the pe......
  • Simmons v. Simmons
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1974