## Facts

- Raymond Campbell, a commercial photographer operating Ray’s Photographic Studio, orally agreed with Earl Daniel, director of a TVA technical library, to microfilm 13 sets of technical trade journals at $90 per roll, totaling $30,240.
- Campbell produced 336 rolls of 16mm microfilm, placed them in cartridges, and delivered them to the TVA library.
- At Daniel’s direction, the original paper journals were destroyed after microfilming.
- The cartridges were shelved and available to library patrons for about two months, with limited documented checkout use.
- Daniel later attempted to return the microfilm, asserting there was no contract, he lacked authority to contract for TVA, and the price was excessive.
- Campbell refused the return; TVA retained and stored the microfilm but refused to pay, leaving the microfilm as the only remaining copy of the destroyed journals.

## Issues

1. Whether a contractor may recover in quantum meruit from a federal corporate agency when an express contract is unenforceable due to the government employee’s lack of actual authority.
2. Whether TVA received a compensable benefit from the microfilming despite limited proven usage and TVA’s attempt to reject the work.
3. Whether the proper measure of recovery in quantum meruit was the fair market value of the services or only TVA’s demonstrable, use-based enrichment.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed a judgment for Campbell in the amount of $30,240.
- The court held that Campbell could recover in quantum meruit even though TVA was not bound on an express contract because Daniel lacked contracting authority.
- The court concluded TVA received and retained a benefit because the microfilm replaced the destroyed journals and remained available as a research resource.
- The court upheld the jury instruction using fair market value as the measure of recovery under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- An unauthorized agreement with a government entity is not enforceable as an express contract absent actual authority, but restitution may be available where the government retains a benefit.
- For quantum meruit against a federal agency, recovery depends on a benefit actually received and retained; “benefit” may include the continuing value of possession and availability of informational resources, not merely frequent use.
- Where the government retains a unique or nonreturnable product created by the claimant’s services—especially when the original materials have been destroyed—reasonable value may be measured by fair market value as a proxy for enrichment.

## Conclusion

The court permitted restitution against TVA because TVA retained microfilmed replacements for destroyed journals, and it treated the retained, available research resource as a real benefit supporting recovery measured by the fair market value of the services rather than by minimal documented usage.


Campbell v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 421 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1970)