Planché v Colburn
An author who had done work on a book for a series which the publishers abandoned, in breach of contract, could recover a reasonable sum for his work on a quantum meruit.
Facts
Mr Planché agreed with the publishers, Colburn, to write a book on ancient armour for a series called The Juvenile Library, for a fee of 100 pounds. After he had done research and written part of the book, the publishers abandoned the series. Mr Planché sued for the value of his work. The publishers argued that he could not recover, because he had not completed the book or delivered it to them.
Legal principle
The Court of Common Pleas held that Mr Planché could recover 50 pounds on a quantum meruit. Tindal CJ said that, the publishers having abandoned the work, the contract had been brought to an end by their default, and Mr Planché was not bound to tender or deliver the part of the book he had written, but was entitled to recover a reasonable sum for the work he had done. The case is an early example of a claim on a quantum meruit, as an alternative to damages, by an innocent party whose performance has been prevented by the other party's breach.
Related cases on mistake, failure of basis, duress and services
- Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms Son & Cooke (Southern) Ltd [1980] QB 677
- BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) [1979] 1 WLR 783
- Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd [1936] 2 KB 403
- Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2006] UKHL 49, [2007] 1 AC 558
- Dextra Bank & Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica [2001] UKPC 50
- Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers Federation (The Evia Luck) [1992] 2 AC 152
- Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32
- Goss v Chilcott [1996] AC 788
Studying restitution and unjust enrichment? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
