Addressing the Doctrinal Quagmire Behind Non-contractual Quantum Meruit in New Zealand

Abstract

Non-contractual quantum meruit allows claimants to receive reasonable remuneration for services rendered in the absence of a valid contract. This article examines the development of non-contractual quantum meruit in New Zealand and the doctrinal quagmire that currently surrounds it. The heart of the quagmire is whether non-contractual quantum meruit is intended to reverse unjustly obtained benefits, or whether it enforces mutual agreements and consensual undertakings. In other words, is non-contractual quantum meruit grounded in unjust enrichment and restitution, or in contract/quasi-contract? The existing doctrinal uncertainty has led to inconsistency in the law, as evidenced by the courts' regular reformulation of the non-contractual quantum meruit elements, continued taxonomic confusion and valuation controversies. This article argues that the New Zealand courts should develop non-contractual quantum meruit within the law of contract or quasi-contract, rather than unjust enrichment and restitution, to reflect NCQM's current role as a form of consent-based liability.