## Facts

- A South Carolina real estate broker (and his company) alleged oral agreements with a landowner/investor concerning development and marketing of two South Carolina properties, including the “Liberty Hall Tract.”
- For Liberty Hall, the broker claimed he was to represent the owner in development and marketing activities and be paid either a 10% commission on property sales or the reasonable value of services plus expenses, and additionally a 5% commission on timber sales.
- The broker claimed he performed substantial work from 1978 to 1981; the Liberty Hall project was not completed due to problems involving mineral rights.
- The broker claimed he arranged Liberty Hall timber sales totaling about $417,905 and was not paid the alleged 5% timber commission (about $20,895.25).
- For a separate Mt. Pleasant tract, the broker alleged an oral agreement to manage development, including zoning efforts, sales, infrastructure coordination, construction, and leasing for a planned shopping center.
- The owner disputed any commission arrangement and contended the broker was only an employee paid a monthly salary and benefits.
- The broker and company sued for breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit; the case proceeded in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a jury award in quantum meruit, particularly where damages were based largely on projected, percentage-based compensation tied to development costs or rents.
2. Under South Carolina law, when may a plaintiff recover in quantum meruit where there is evidence of an express oral agreement and the plaintiff has received salary and benefits.
3. Whether the jury could consider quantum meruit after resolving the contract claims, and what proof is required to quantify restitutionary recovery.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The court affirmed the judgment to the extent it rested on the jury’s breach of contract verdict.
- The court held that quantum meruit was potentially available as a theory, but reversed the quantum meruit award because the proof of the amount was insufficient and speculative.
- The court remanded for a new trial limited to determining, if warranted, the reasonable value of services recoverable in quantum meruit.

## Legal Principles

- Quantum meruit permits recovery of the reasonable value of services rendered to prevent unjust enrichment, when an enforceable contract does not fully govern or compensate the services at issue.
- To recover in quantum meruit, the claimant must prove with accuracy and precision (1) what services were actually performed and (2) their reasonable value.
- Anticipated or contingent compensation measures—such as percentages of development costs, gross rents, or expected commissions—cannot, by themselves, establish quantum meruit damages.
- Where the claimant has already received salary and benefits, quantum meruit also requires proof that the defendant retained a benefit for which the existing compensation was inadequate, and the award must be grounded in non-speculative valuation.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit left intact the contract-based recovery but set aside the restitution award because the record did not supply a reliable, non-speculative basis to value services beyond salary and benefits; it remanded for a limited new trial to determine any properly proven quantum meruit recovery.


Blanton v. Friedberg, 819 F.2d 489 (4th Cir. 1987)