Australia: Quantum Meruit – Still A Valid Remedy For Contract Repudiation

Last Updated: 2 September 2009
Article by Scott Alden and Alyson Eather

When a contract is repudiated by a principal, the contractor has two remedies available to it at common law. The first is a claim for contractual damages. The alternative is a claim on quantum meruit.

It is often the case that a claim brought on quantum meruit (a remedy which provides for payment of the reasonable value of the services performed) will yield a higher monetary figure than one for contractual damages. In the case of Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works1 the Court noted that there did not appear anything anomalous in the fact that either remedy may yield a higher monetary figure than the other. Nor was it anomalous that a claim on quantum meruit may exceed or, in some cases, be far in excess of any profit that would have been made on the contract, should it have been brought to completion.

For this reason, and the fact that a quantum meruit claim has no nexus to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties, there has been much criticism of claims brought on a quantum meruit basis when contractual damages were an available alternative remedy.

The recent case of Sopov v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2009] VSCA 141 provides a relevant and interesting summary of the law to date regarding the availability of quantum meruit and confirms that, despite the criticism, the authority that quantum meruit is a valid remedy following acceptance of another party's repudiation, is too well entrenched to be changed by any court other than the High Court of Australia.

The Facts

Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (Kane) and Sopov entered into a contract for building works at a former industrial building site at Collingwood in inner Melbourne, Victoria. Following repeated delays and disputes in relation to Sopov's right to deduct liquidated damages, Kane suspended the works and Sopov subsequently called upon the bank guarantees. Kane asserted that the notice to call on the bank guarantee amounted to a repudiation of the contract, which it accepted and hence terminated the contract.

At first instance, it was found that Sopov had repudiated the contract and that Kane had the right to terminate. On appeal the critical issue was whether or not Kane, having accepted Sopov's repudiation of the contract, had a right to claim quantum meruit or whether its only remedy was contractual damages.

The appeal was brought on the following basis:

  • Kane's only remedy was contractual damages.
  • If Kane was entitled to a claim on a quantum meruit, it is limited by the contract price.
  • If the amount recoverable is not limited to the contract price, the contract price is nevertheless the best evidence of the value of the benefit received by Sopov as a result of the works being carried out under the contract.

Among other things, the Court had to consider the following three issues:

  • Is a quantum meruit claim still valid following repudiation by the principal?
  • Does the contract continue to have influence on the determination of the value of the quantum meruit, or is it one piece of evidence as to the benefit of the work undertaken?
  • Should the contract price act as a cap on the amount of quantum meruit recovered?

The Right To Claim Quantum Meruit Damages

The Court considered the various authorities in relation to the right to claim quantum meruit damages following repudiation of a contract.2 In particular, the Court referred to the long standing High Court authority that:

'The law is clear enough that an innocent party who accepts the defaulting party's repudiation of a contract has the option of either suing for damages for breach of contract or suing on a quantum meruit for work done.'3

The Court recognised that since 1992 and the decision of the High Court not to grant special leave to appeal from the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal in Renard, there has been increasing criticism, both judicial and academic, regarding the availability of quantum meruit as an alternative to contract damages in the event of repudiation of the contract.

Specifically, the Court noted that the basis of this criticism is that:

  • When a contract is terminated at common law by acceptance of the principal's repudiation, while both parties are discharged from further performance, rights which have already been unconditionally acquired are not divested or discharged unless the contract provides otherwise;
  • If there is a valid and enforceable right to payment, there is no need or legal justification for the law to superimpose an obligation or promise to pay; and
  • There is no room for a restitutionary remedy since the builder's claim to payment is governed by the contract.

Despite what the Court considered to be powerful criticisms of the jurisprudence applied to date, the Court found itself constrained by a principle which it concurred was 'too well settled by authority to be shaken'4.

The Court found that:

'The right of a builder to sue on a quantum meruit following a repudiation of the contract has been part of the common law of Australia for more than a century. ...If that remedy is now to be declared to be unavailable as a matter of law, that is a step which the High Court alone can take.'

The Influence Of The Contract

Having determined that Kane was entitled to bring its claim on quantum meruit, the Court then had to consider whether or not the claim should be constrained by the contractual provisions.

At first instance, the Court found that in determining the quantum meruit claim, the 'influence of the contract cannot disappear entirely, even if the contract no longer exists.'5

On appeal, the Court found that this view could not be sustained. The Court, in overturning the first instance decision, reasoned that the basis of the quantum meruit remedy was the fiction that the contract is void from the beginning, and therefore the contract can have no continuing influence when the value of the work is being assessed on a quantum meruit.

The Court recognised that it appeared anomalous that quantum meruit ignores the bargain that was struck between the parties and the rights that have accrued prior to termination. However, it was observed by the Court that such 'incongruities are as entrenched as the remedy itself'.

Therefore while the contract price was relevant to determining quantum meruit, it was not because it was a continuing influence but rather it was treated as evidence of the value that the parties attributed, at a particular time, to the works.

Should The Contract Price Be A Ceiling On The Amount Recovered?

For the same reason that the contract was considered not to be a 'continuing influence' in the determination of the sum of quantum meruit, the contract price was held not to impose a ceiling on the amount recoverable. The Court noted that the proper approach to the assessment of the quantum meruit claim was to ascertain the fair and reasonable value of the work performed. The Court relied on the statement in Renard6 that it would be 'extremely anomalous' if the defaulting party could invoke the contract, which it had repudiated, to impose a ceiling on the amounts recoverable.

Is The Contract Price The Best Evidence Of Value?

The Court rejected the argument that the contract price was the best evidence of the value conferred on the principal. The contract price, it was argued, was struck prospectively based on the expectations of the future events. In contrast, quantum meruit is assessed with the benefit of hindsight, on the basis of events that actually occurred.

Therefore the relevant considerations in determining the amount recoverable under the quantum meruit claim were:

  • The total costs incurred and payments made by Kane in carrying out the works; and
  • That the amounts in question were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Profit And Overhead – Can It Be Recovered?

At first instance, it was found that Kane was not entitled to claim a 10% margin which it had argued represented profit and overhead. The first instance Court stated that a profit margin claim was more relevant to a claim for contractual damages rather than one based on quantum meruit. Kane argued that there was a legal entitlement to claim a profit margin.7 The Appeal Court agreed with Kane's submission stating that the 'existence of an entitlement to a profit margin seemed entirely consistent with the resitutionary objective of measuring the value of the benefit incurred.'

Inclusion Of Variation Claims

Kane had submitted, and Sopov had rejected, a number of variation claims during the life of the contract. At first instance, the Court deducted the amount of those rejected variation claims from the quantum meruit entitlement. The Appeal Court found that if the work, the subject of the variation claims, had been carried out, the only question was the fair and reasonable value of the work. It was irrelevant whether or not that work was outside the scope of works. The only relevant factor was the extent to which those works conferred a benefit on Sopov, and the value that should be paid to Kane for that work.

The Appeal Court therefore increased the quantum meruit entitlement to include the amount of the rejected variation claims.


While recognizing the criticism and issues regarding the availability of quantum meruit as a resitutionary remedy following contract repudiation, this case further entrenches quantum meruit as a valid remedy for repudiation and subsequent contract termination.

Further, it provides some practical guidance on the factors that should be considered when bringing a quantum meruit claim and reinforces that, based on precedent, the primary consideration will be to calculate the benefit and value that the work has conferred on the principal.


1. (1992) 26 NSWLR 234

2. Planche v Colburn (1831) 8 Bing 14; 131 ER 305; Segur v Franklin (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 67; Iezzi Constructions Pty Ltd v Watkins Pacific (Qld) Pty Ltd [1995] 2 Qd R 350 at 361.

3. Ibid. [1] .

4. See for example Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v ABB Service Pty Ltd (2005) 21 BCL 12; [2004] NSWCA 181.

5. Kane Constructions Pty Ltd v Sopov (No 2) [2005] VSC 492

6. Ibid at [3]

7. Walter Construction Ltd v Walker Corporation Ltd (2001) 47 ATR 48, [412] - [414]; ibid at [3]

© DLA Phillips Fox

DLA Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in Australasia and a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of independent legal practices. It is a separate and distinct legal entity. For more information visit

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.