Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 331-7

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 1 of 6

BIG-D' AFFIRMATIVE CLAIM AGAINST LEPRINO FOR S QUANTUM MERUIT

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 331-7

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 2 of 6

INSTRUCTION NO. ___ QUASI-CONTRACT (QUANTUM MERUIT)1 ________________________________________________________________________ Even if you find that no implied, express, written, or oral contract existed between the parties, or that the contract was abandoned, you may still find that Big-D is entitled to recover the costs of the labor and materials provided in the construction project under the theory of quasi-contract. Quasi-contract prevents the injustice of one party' retaining s the benefit of another' labor or materials without paying for the benefit. s

For you to find that Big-D is entitled to the reasonable value of its work under the theory of quasi-contract, you must find that (1) there was no express contract between Leprino and Big-D or that agreement was subsequently abandoned; (2) Big-D conferred a benefit directly on Leprino; (3) Leprino knew it received, and retained, the benefit of Big-D' s work; and (4) Leprino' retention of the benefit would be unjust without compensating s Big-D.

If you find that Big-D has proved these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, you must find for Big-D under a theory of quasi-contract and award plaintiff damages in an amount equivalent to the benefit retained by Leprino.

If you find that Big-D has not proved all these elements, then you must find for Leprino on the claim of quasi-contract and you may not award damages to Big-D for this claim.

1 Authority:

Model Jury Instructions Construction Litigation, No. 7.06.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 331-7

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 3 of 6

INSTRUCTION NO._______ QUANTUM MERUIT-ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY2

For Big-D California to recover from Leprino on its claim of an implied contract to pay for goods and services, you must find all of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. 2. Big-D California delivered goods and services to Leprino; Big-D California did so without a specific agreement as to payment, but with the reasonable expectation that it would be paid the reasonable value of the goods and services by Leprino; 3. Leprino requested or accepted the goods and services expecting to pay for them or under such circumstances that it knew, or reasonably should have known, that Big-D California expected to be paid; and 4. The reasonable market value of the goods and services rendered.

If you find that any one or more of these four statements has not been proven, then your verdict must be for Leprino. On the other hand, if you find that all of these four statements have been proved, then your verdict must be for Big-D California. (Then you must consider Leprino' s affirmative defenses of [insert any affirmative defenses that would have been a complete defense to Big-D California' claim]). s

2 Source and Authority: CJI 30:14; Alfred Brown Co. v. Johnson ­ Gibbons & Reed W. Paving-Kemper, 695 P.2d 746 (Colo. App. 1984), cert denied (1985); Scott Co. v. MK-Ferguson Co., 32 P.2d, 100, 102-3 (Colo. App. 1991) cert denied (1992)("quantum meruit is an appropriate basis for recovery when substantial changes occur which are not covered by the contract and are not within the contemplation of the parties... ")

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 331-7

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 4 of 6

If you find that any one or more of these affirmative defenses have been proved by a preponderance of evidence, then your verdict must be for Leprino. However, if you find that none of these affirmative defenses have been proved, then your verdict must be for Big-D California.

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 331-7

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 5 of 6

INSTRUCTION NO.______ GENERAL DAMAGES3 If you find in favor of Big-D California on its claim for quatum meruit for the labor and materials rendered to Leprino, you shall assess as its actual damages the reasonable value of the labor and materials rendered at the time they were rendered, minus any payments made by Leprino to Big-D California.

3 Source and Authority: CJI 30:48

Case 1:03-cv-02669-MSK-PAC

Document 331-7

Filed 03/31/2006

Page 6 of 6