Quantum meruit is a term much used and, regretfully much misunderstood. This is mainly because there is genuine confusion about the approach of the courts to entitlement to payment on the basis of quantum meruit.<p></p><p>Quantum meruit operates outside of contracts where one party nevertheless does work for another. The party for whom the work was done is said to be &amp;“unjustly enriched&amp;” and this gives rise to a remedy in restitution in order to relieve the party of that unjust enrichment. Quantum meruit is simply the means of valuing that remedy. </p><p>In &amp;“true&amp;” quantum meruit, the sum should equal the &amp;“added value&amp;” from the work - for instance the difference between the value to a developer of an empty site and a site on which a building has been erected. The value to the developer might be more than the sum the parties would have agreed if they had entered into a contract. Equally, in a poor market it might be less.</p><p>These days, nevertheless, both parties in this situation tend to the view that the builder&amp;’s entitlement is something like &amp;“cost plus&amp;”, i.e. his expenses plus a reasonable margin for profit. This assumption usually turns out to be a fair …