Albert G. Hill, Jr. v. Shamoun & Norman, Llp
544 S.W.3d 724 | Texas Supreme Court | 2018
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A law firm sued for payment under a contingent-fee agreement that wasn't signed. Texas's highest court ruled the firm could still recover the reasonable value of its work even without a written contract, but the jury's damage award couldn't stand because the expert's opinion relied too heavily on the unenforceable agreement itself. The case was sent back for a new trial on damages. For subcontractors, this means you may have legal options to recover payment for work performed even if your contract isn't fully signed, but you'll need solid evidence of what your services were actually worth.
Key Takeaways
- •You can pursue payment for services under quantum meruit (reasonable value) even without a signed written agreement, despite Texas's statute of frauds
- •Your damages expert cannot base their opinion primarily on the unenforceable contract itself—they must independently establish what your work was reasonably worth
- •Document the scope, nature, and timeline of services performed; this evidence matters more than the contract terms when calculating recovery
Statute of frauds does not preclude quantum-meruit claim for reasonable value of services.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I get paid for construction work if I don't have a signed contract in Texas?
Yes, under quantum meruit you can recover the reasonable value of work performed even without a signed written agreement. However, you'll need clear evidence of what services you provided and what they were worth in the market. Your damages claim cannot rely solely on an unsigned contract—it must be based on independent proof of the work's actual value.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.