{
  "id": 11299445,
  "name": "J. M. FORBES, T/A FORBES' FLORIST-ALUMINUM PRODUCTS-REALTOR v. SAM PILLMON, T/A CHOWAN BEACH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Forbes v. Pillmon",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 746DC366",
  "first_page": "69",
  "last_page": "71",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 69"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 226",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550597
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 S.E. 2d 789",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551296
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/4/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 507",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559762
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 140",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606805
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 362",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568256,
        8568203
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0139-02",
        "/nc/263/0139-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39453284728182997
    },
    "sha256": "13e042f85583f327506e714576672b9c5c580d4ea63a2d00126f2e7256235dbf",
    "simhash": "1:7d6e1277f62db364",
    "word_count": 533
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "J. M. FORBES, T/A FORBES\u2019 FLORIST-ALUMINUM PRODUCTS-REALTOR v. SAM PILLMON, T/A CHOWAN BEACH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in its instructions on quantum meruit as the measure of damages. Defendant tendered written instructions to the court which it declined to adopt. The court charged, in part, that the measure of damages\n\u201cis the reasonable value of the labor and materials accepted and appropriated by Mr. Pillmon and these alone for which Mr. Pillmon must pay under the theory of quantum meruit unless you find that Mr. Pillmon, through his own actions, prevented Mr. Forbes from completing the building and, in this instance, the contention is installing the doors. I say that if you find that Mr. Pillmon prevented him from installing the doors, then it would be your duty to consider whether or not Mr. Forbes should be compensated and paid for the doors....\u201d\nWhile the first portion of the above quoted instructions accurately defines the limits of quantum meruit recovery, that portion relating to the effect of the uninstalled doors on the measure of damages is incorrect. Plaintiff\u2019s right of recovery in this case is not bottomed on the existence of an express contract. Defendant was thus under no obligation to accept the doors. Plaintiff\u2019s recovery must be limited to the reasonable value of the goods and services accepted and appropriated by defendant. Helicopter Corp. v. Realty Co., 263 N.C. 139, 139 S.E. 2d 362; Thormer v. Mail Order Co., 241 N.C. 249, 85 S.E. 2d 140. The purpose of allowing quantum meruit recovery is the prevention of unjust enrichment. See Builders Supply v. Midyette, 274 N.C. 264, 162 S.E. 2d 507; Thormer v. Mail Order Co., supra. Absent an express agreement, when goods or services are accepted and appropriated by one from another, the law raises an implied promise on the part of the recipient to pay. Builders Supply v. Midyette, supra; Stout v. Smith, 4 N.C. App. 81, 165 S.E. 2d 789. The court\u2019s inaccurate instructions on this issue constituted prejudicial error. There must be a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Cherry, Cherry and Flythe by Ernest L. Evans for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. M. FORBES, T/A FORBES\u2019 FLORIST-ALUMINUM PRODUCTS-REALTOR v. SAM PILLMON, T/A CHOWAN BEACH\nNo. 746DC366\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\nQuasi Contracts \u00a7 2\u2014 measure of damages \u2014 doors not installed\nIn an action seeking recovery on quantum meruit, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it should consider whether plaintiff should be compensated for certain doors if it found that defendant had prevented plaintiff from installing the doors, since plaintiff\u2019s recovery is limited to the reasonable value of goods and services accepted and appropriated by defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Blythe, District Court Judge, 29 October 1973 Session of District Court held in Hertford County.\nThis is an action seeking recovery on quantum meruit. An earlier appeal in the same case is reported in Forbes v. Pillmon, 18 N.C. App. 439, 197 S.E. 2d 226. At the second trial, plaintiff apparently abandoned efforts to recover on an alleged express contract. Evidence was conflicting on the quality of the services performed by plaintiff. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $4,000.00 and judgment was entered for that amount.\nNo counsel for plaintiff appellee.\nCherry, Cherry and Flythe by Ernest L. Evans for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0069-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 103
}