{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f41\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020602080505020303}Baskerville Old Face;}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}
{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}
{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;
\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;
\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden 
Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid7734970 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid7734970 footer;}}{\*\revtbl {Unknown;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid223508\rsid331254\rsid7734970\rsid9508377\rsid10690609}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info
{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min6}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr8}{\version4}{\edmins5}{\nofpages22}{\nofwords9535}{\nofchars54355}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}
{\nofcharsws63763}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1080 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120
\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot223508 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid223508 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid223508 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid223508 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid223508 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1080\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid223508\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Tanaguchi-Ruth + Associates v. MDI Corp. (Leo Palace)}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {
\f41\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid331254 22}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  of 28
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid331254 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TANAGUCHI-RUTH + ASSOCIATES
\par dba TANAGUCHI-RUTH ARCHITECTS,}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par Plaintiff-Appellee,
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 v.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 MDI GUAM CORPORATION dba LEO PALACE RESORT,}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par Defendant-Appellant.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 OPINION}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Filed: April 1, 2005}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 2005 Guam 7}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA03-021
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV0671-02}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on October 15, 2004
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 

\par }{\ul\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par Duncan G. McCully, }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Esq}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .
\par McCully & Beggs, P.C.
\par Ste. 200, 139 Murray Blvd.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sa58\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\ul\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par Thomas L. Roberts, }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Esq}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .
\par Dooley, Roberts & Fowler LLP
\par Ste. 201 Orlean Pac. Plaza.
\par 865 S. Marine Dr.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sa58\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Tamuning, Guam 96911\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TORRES, J.:}{\b\insrsid223508 
\par }{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [1]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The Defendant-Appellant, MDI Corporation dba Leo Palace Resort (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ), appeals a judgment awarding }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
recovery to the Plaintiff-Appellee, Tanaguchi-Ruth + Associates dba Tanaguchi-Ruth Architects (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ), for architectural work performed by TRA on behalf of Leo Palace.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s primary contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in allowing recovery because Leo Palace did not receive or use TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s work, and, therefore, Leo Palace did not receive a benefit from TRA as required for recovery under a }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace also challenges the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s finding that TRA satisfied its duty to mitigate damages, and finally, challenges the trial court}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s award of prejudgment interest.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We hold that the trial court correctly allowed for }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  recovery, but erred in awarding recovery for work performed after TRA became reasonably aware that it could not perform the work within Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s design budget.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We further determine that Leo Palace waived its objection to the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s award of prejudgment interest.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We affirm the lower court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s judgment in part and reverse in part.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 I.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [2]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The construction project for the Leo Palace Resort Complex in the Manenggon Hills area of Yona commenced in the 1980}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In the late 1980}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s, TRA was hired by and performed architectural services for Leo Palace for portions of the project.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 After construction commenced on the project, in the early 1990}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s, Leo Palace decided to indefinitely postpone the interior finishing of the hotel building (now the Hotel Belvedere) on the Complex.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The hotel sat as a shell until November of 2000, at which time Leo Palace decided to complete the interior work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [3]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab In late 2000, Sumitomo Construction Company contacted and informed TRA that Sumitomo was chosen as the contractor for the construction of the hotel.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  
}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA understood that its role was to take design concepts from other architects hired by Leo Palace and to prepare the construction drawings and specifications to obtain the necessary Guam building permits.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA began initial preparations, deciding to complete their work in three staggered packages, which would enable the permits to be acquired in stages.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Package 1 entailed converting TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s early drawings into Computer Assisted Drafting format, and designing the guest rooms.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Package 2 covered the common areas and lobbies, while Package 3 encompassed the hotel}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s restaurants.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [4]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab As originally planned, TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fee was to be submitted to Sumitomo, included as part of Sumitomo}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s total construction costs and be paid for by Sumitomo.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
TRA submitted to Sumitomo an initial fee proposal for all three packages for $1,285,900.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Sumitomo found this amount problematic for unstated reasons, and informed TRA that Sumitomo would negotiate a new amount and thereafter submit what they considered an acceptable fee proposal to Leo Palace.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA and Sumitomo never decided on any set amount for the work for the three packages.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [5]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab TRA eventually came to an agreement with Sumitomo that Sumitomo would guarantee to pay TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s fees for the Package 1 work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA then started work on the Package 1 documents.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
At some point after TRA started work on Package 1, Leo Palace arranged to pay TRA directly for that portion of the work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 During this time, TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fee for the Package 1 work was still not made definite. 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [6]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab On July 7, 2001, two representatives of Leo Palace, Mr. Ishii and Mr. Hyodo, met with TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s representative, Mr. Ruth, to negotiate the fee for the Package 1 work, which at that point was approximately 60% completed.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The parties reached an agreement on the fee and Leo Palace instructed TRA to complete the Package 1 work, which was due on July 31, 2001.}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   Leo Palace eventually paid TRA for this work in full in December of 2001.
}}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 At the July 7, 2001 meeting, Mr. Ishii also requested that TRA submit a quote for the Package 2 work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Up until this point, TRA had been working and corresponding with two architectural firms hired by Leo Palace regarding the scope and ideas for the Package 2 work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
These firms were Archiprime (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 AP}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) and Ricc
ardo Tossani Architecture Co. (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 RTA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [7]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab On July 24, 2001, Leo Palace sent TRA a letter, addressed to Mr. Ruth, informing TRA that Sumitomo was to arrange for RTA and TRA }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 to continue with the application of a building permit for the (phase one) guestrooms.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s Excerpts of Record (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ER}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ), p. 72 (Letter from Abe to TRA of 7/24/01).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The letter further stated: 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 However, development of the project has increased at such a rapid ra
te, therefore it is getting steadily harder (for the above RTA and AP companies) to carry on working together on and after phase two.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Kanko Kikaku Sekkeisha Co. (KKS) . . . has been chosen to continue and complete the project.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The operating arrangement has been concluded and is now contracted to KKS. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
KKS would like to continue the project with the guidance of TRA as a local partner, Leopalace . . . has approved of this move without any obligations, and we would appreciate your continuing support of the project.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The construction period has a prearranged time limit, therefore, we are theorizing as to apply the original drawings and specifications (of the almost completed phase one) in order to prevent further delays.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Please note that KKS will be making use of your preliminary drawings.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
We would be grateful if the estimate and invoice could be submitted to the office of Leopalace . . ., situated at MDI GUAM CORPORATION, however this must be sent through the services of KKS.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We would highly appreciate your cooperation in the development of Manenggon Hills and the collaborating local Guam companies. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 /s/ Satoshi Abe 
\par Director
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s ER, p. 72 (Letter}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 from Abe to TRA of 7/24/01).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [8]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Upon receipt of the July 24, 2001 letter, TRA thereafter commenced work on Packages 2 and 3, apparently under the direction of KKS.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Specifically, KKS submitted its conceptual drawings to TRA on September 20, 2001, and requested that TRA complete various items of work utilizing these drawings.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 At this point the deadline for the completion of the Package 2 and 3 work was October 31, 2001.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
This deadline reflected the November 1, 2001 deadline for applying for the building permits.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Considering these deadlines, upon receipt of KKS}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s drawings on September 20, 2001, TRA enlisted the help of engineering consultants to work on Packages 2 and 3 while it simultaneously prepared its fee proposal for these packages.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The consultants included GK2 Inc., EMC2 Mechanical, Inc., and EMCE, Consulting Engineers.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
On September 28, 2001, TRA sent Leo Palace its fee proposal for Packages 2 and 3.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The proposed fee was $827,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
At this point, TRA had incurred $26,050.00 in fees for work already performed on Packages 2 and 3, which included work done by both TRA and its engineering consultants.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [9]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab On October 10, 2001, a representative of KKS left a message with TRA recommending that Mr. Ruth meet with Mr. Ishii on the following Saturday regarding Leo Palace}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s concerns with TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fee proposal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The KKS representative also recommended that TRA call Mr. Ishii prior to Mr. Ishii}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s arrival on Guam.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
TRA did not call Mr. Ishii.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Notwithstanding this communication by KKS to TRA regarding the concerns over TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s fee proposal, KKS, on October 11, 2001, sent an email to TRA indicating that Leo Palace had }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
accept[ed] to proceed design work based on the original design in order to preserve the permit schedule.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellee}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s Supp. Excerpts of Record (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 SER}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
), p. 44 (E-mail from Yukiharu, Architect, KKS to H. Mark Ruth, FAIA and Melet Santos, TRA (Oct. 26, 2001, 9:00 pm)).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
KKS further instructed TRA to proceed with the layout revisions to the car parking.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [10]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Mr. Ruth, Mr. Ishii and Mr. Hyodo met on October 15, 2001.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 At the meeting, Mr. Ishii informed TRA that Leo Palace}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s budget for the Package 2 and 3 work was between $300,000.00 and $400,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Mr. Ruth knew at this meeting that TRA could not possibly do the work required for $300,000.00 to $400,000.00, but did not disclose this information to Mr. Ishii or Mr. Hyodo.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [11]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab On October 18, 2001, TRA faxed Leo Palace a proposed new fee of $659,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Mr. Ruth, Ishii, and Hyodo met later that day, and Mr. Ishii again informed Mr. Ruth that Leo Palace could not pay more than between $300,000.00 and $400,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [12]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Mr. Ruth sent a letter to Leo Palace on October 22, 2001, revising and reducing TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fee to $592,000.00.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Mr. Ruth also informed Leo Palace that the work for Package 2 was 70% complete for the architectural and structural portions, and 50% complete for the mechanical and electrical portions.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Mr. Ruth also stated that they did not want to be responsible for any schedule delays, and that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [a]s required by the schedule, these documents will be complete November 1st.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Please advise us in writing if this is not what you wish.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s ER, p. 88 (Letter from TRA to Ishii of 10/22/01).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [13]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab On October 23, 2001, Mr. Ishii faxed a letter to Mr. Ruth, stating that they received the revised estimated design fee for Packages 2 and 3.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The letter continued: }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 However, we regret to say that we are not able 
to accept your proposal because the Amount is still too high than our budget.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Therefore, we herewith inform you not to order the job to your firm this time.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }
{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s ER, p. 126 (Letter from Ishii to TRA of 10/23/01).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [14]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace eventually hired another local architecture firm Martin, Cristobal & Laguana (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 MCL}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) to do the Package 2 and 3 work for a negotiated fee of between $320,000.00 and $330,000.00. 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [15]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab On November 6, 2001, TRA sent a bill to Leo Palace for work done for Packages 2 and 3, totaling $163,298.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Leo Palace withheld payment.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA filed a lien on the property with the Department of Land Management for the outstanding amount claimed.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [16]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab TRA filed an Amended Complaint against Leo Palace on June 12, 2002.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The complaint contained three counts: (1) breach of contract; (2) }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 /unjust enrichment; and (3) enforcement of lien.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [17]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab After a five-day bench trial, on September 9, 2003, the trial court issued a }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Disision yan Otden}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  (}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Decision and Order}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The court denied recovery on the breach of contract claim, but granted recovery on the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 and enforcement of lien counts.}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   The trial court first recognized that TRA claimed that there was an }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 express contract}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  between the parties with the price to be agreed upon at a later date, (Appellant}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s ER, p. 49-50 (Decision and Order, Sept. 9, 2003)), and that alternatively, recovery was warranted under }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quantum meruit}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 .}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   The court determined that if there was in fact an }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 express contract}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  between the parties, the }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 disparity between Defendant}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s budget and the f
ee estimate by Plaintiff makes it difficult for the [c]ourt to determine a reasonable price,}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
 and that the court therefore could not grant recovery to TRA based upon this theory.  Appellant}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
s ER, p. 50 (Decision and Order, Sept. 9, 2003).  The trial court further stated that assuming there was an express contract, the only reasonable manner for the court to determine price would be based on the reasonable value of the TRA}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s services.  The court found that this method of determining price was the basis for TRA}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quantum meruit}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  theory of recovery.
\par }}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The court awarded TRA $146,919.00 for
 the reasonable value of services rendered (excluding fees and labor performed after October 23, 2001), its costs, plus interest from the date of invoice until paid.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [18]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The trial court filed a judgment for TRA on September 23, 2003, which was entered on the docket on September 30, 2003.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace filed the instant appeal.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 II.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [19]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab This court has jurisdiction over final judgments pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  3107(b) and 48 U.S.C. }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  1424-1(a)(2), }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 as amended by}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  U.S. Pub. L. 108-378 (adopted Oct. 30, 2004).
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 III.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 A.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Award of }{\b\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum Meruit}{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  Damages.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [20]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab In its Decision and Order, the trial court found that all the elements for }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
recovery were met in this case.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The court disagreed with Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s contention that it received no benefit from TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court first found that TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s plans were not used because Leo Palace terminated KKS due to Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s dissatisfaction with KKS}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s design and the
 cost of its design concept.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The court next found that, as a matter of law, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [a] benefit is conferred upon the other party whenever a person performs at the request of the other party.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s ER, p. 55 (Decision and Order, Sept. 9, 2003).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [21]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace challenges the award of damages under a }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  theory, primarily arguing that recovery under a 
}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  theory is not permissible when an architect}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s plans are not actually used.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
  One issue raised in this appeal relates to whether KKS, as agent of Leo Palace, accepted TRA}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
s work.  We do not need to examine this issue in light of our ruling regarding the benefit necessary for recovery under a quantum meruit theory.}}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Leo Palace contends that simply satisfying the request of another is not a sufficient benefit conferred on the requesting party.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace maintains it did not receive or use TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s plans for the Package 2 and 3 work, did not benefit from TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services, and should not be required to pay for TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We disagree.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [22]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Whether the elements for }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  recovery were satisfied is a question of fact reviewed for clear error.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Biller Assocs. v. Rte. 156 Realty Co.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  725 A.2d 398, 405 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 A determination of a quantum meruit claim requires a factual examination of the circumstances and of the conduct of the parties . . . that is not a task for an appellat
e court but rather for the trier of fact.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) (citations and internal brackets omitted).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The question of whether the lower court decided TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  determinati
on in accordance with the governing law is, however, a legal question reviewed }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 de novo}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Fleming v. Quigley}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 2003 Guam 4, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 14 (stating that determination of the legal basis for awarding attorney}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fees was a question of law reviewed }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 de novo}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{
\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
  Leo Palace asserted at oral argument that the question of whether the lower court correctly allowed recovery under a quantum meruit theory presents a mixed question of fact and law, and is thus reviewed is }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 de novo}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 .  As stated above, the trial court}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
s determination of the elements of quantum meruit is reviewed for clear error, while the legal theories underlying the court}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s decision are reviewed }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 de novo}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 .}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 1.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum Meruit as a Theory of Recovery.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [23]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s Amended Complaint stated a count for }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s ER, p. 5 (Amended Complaint).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 As acknowledged by the parties, the nature of the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  theory of recovery has been the subject of much confusion.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace urges the court to abandon labels placed on theories of recovery.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We decline the suggestion.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We would do a disservice to the legal field and further confuse the issues 
herein were we to abandon all distinctions as heretofore recognized within an entire body and philosophy of law pertaining to remedies.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Instead, we will attempt to clarify this area of the law.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [24]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , translated literally from Latin, means, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 as much as he has deserved.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 B}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 lack}{
\scaps\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  L}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 aw}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  D}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ictionary}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 1255 (7th ed. 1999).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The count of }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 was historically used to recover }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 for work and labor done.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Alternatives Unlimited, Inc. v. New Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Commr}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 843 A.2d 252, 286 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004) (quoting 1 G}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 eorge}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  E. P}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 almer}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , L}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
aw}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 of}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estitution}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  7 (1978)).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Although TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s second count was for }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum Meruit/Unjust Enrichment,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s ER, p. 5 (Amended Complaint), unjust enrichment is but one theory whereby a plaintiff can recover under }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 (i.e., for work and labor done).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  is not necessarily synonymous with recovery under an unjust enrichment theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Alternatives Unlimited}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 843 A.2d 252 (Md. Ct. App. 2004), the court explained the historical confusion in this area, stating:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Although the paths of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment have, for at least a century, diverged, they do share a long common ancestry.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Some discussions, indeed, still use the terms interchangeably.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Some carefully distinguish them. Some do both in successive paragraphs or even successive sentences without seeming to be aware of the slightest inconsistency.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
It is a field fraught with hidden pitfalls.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Saul Levmore, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Explaining Restitution,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  71 }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Vir. L. Rev.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  65, 66-67 (1985), refers to it as }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 the remarkably uneven terrain of restitution law.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Alternatives Unlimited Inc}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 843 A.2d at 284.}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 See also Commerce P}{
\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 ship 8098 Ltd. P}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 ship v. Equity Contracting Co.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 , 695 So. 2d 383, 386 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) (}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}
}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 To describe the cause of action encompassed by a contract implied in law, Florida courts have synonymously used a number of different terms}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quasi contract,}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 unjust enrichment,}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 restitution,}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 constructive contract,}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  and }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quantum meruit.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  This profusion of terminology has its roots in legal history.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 ) (footnotes omitted).}}}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Both quantum meruit and unjust enrichment are offshoots of the common law action of Assumpsit . . . .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Assumpsit}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
 literally means, in Latin, }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 he assumed}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  or }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 he undertook,}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  and was a form of action which developed for the enforcement of a simple, actual contract (in contrast 
to one under seal where the action was one on }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Covenant}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 ).  }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Alternatives Unlimited Inc. v. New Baltimore City Bd. of Sch. Commr}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
, 843 A.2d 252, 284 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004).  Assumpsit eventually expanded from allowing the enforcement of express contracts, to the enforcement of contracts implied from the conduct of the parties, and then to }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 certain instances of unjust enrichment, where the law was willing to create a contract, as a legal fiction, where none in fact existed.}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Id}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 .}}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Over time, Assumpsit came to cover three areas: (1) express contracts; (2) implied in fact contracts; and (3) implied in law contracts (i.e., quasi-contracts).}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   A contract implied in law is synonymous with the term }{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quasi-contract.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Commerce P}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 ship}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
, 695 So. 2d at 386 (}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
Concerned about the confusion between contracts implied in law and fact, two legal scholars sought to }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
extirpate the term }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 contract implied in law}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  from legal usage and to substitute for it the term }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quasi contract}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 .}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   1 }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Corbin on Contracts}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  1.20.  As Corbin explains, although the term }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quasi contract}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  took hold, }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 the older term successfully resisted extirpation to the further confusion of law students and lawyers.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 ).}}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  was one count of the several common and particular forms of General Assumpsit.}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   The common counts were: 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 1) money paid to the defendant}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
s use, 2) money had and received, 3) use and occupation of land, 4) goods sold and delivered, 5) quantum meruit, and 6) quantum valebant (}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 how much were they [the goods] worth}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 ).
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Alternatives Unlimited}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 , 843 A.2d at 288.}}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Recovery under this count of Assumpsit was available under a theory of implied in fact contract, or, alternatively, quasi-contract.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 285-86, 288; }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Mattson}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 943 P.2d 247, 259 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum meruit is comprised of two distinct theories: (1) contract implied in law, also known as quasi-contract and (2) contract implied in fact.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid331254 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [25]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The measure of recovery for quantum meruit, whether under the theory of an implied-in-fact contract, or a quasi-contract, is }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 the value of the services, measuring the value in the labor market where the service itself was sought by the defendant.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Alternatives Unlimited}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 843 A.2d at 288 (quoting 1 Dan B. Dobbs, }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Law of Remedies}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 583 (2d ed. 1993)).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [26]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab TRA expressed its }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 count under the theory of unjust enrichment.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s ER, p. 5 (Amended Complaint).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Contracts implied in law, or as they are more commonly called }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quasi contracts,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  are obligations imposed by law on grounds of justice and equity.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Their purpose is to prevent unjust enrichment.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Unlike express contracts o
r contracts implied in fact, quasi contracts do not rest upon the assent of the contracting parties.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Nursing Care Servs., Inc. v. Dobos}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 380 So. 2d 516, 518 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980); }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 see also Alternatives Unlimited}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 843 A.2d at 287 (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The core value served by the development of the implied-in law contract or quasi-contract was a restitutionary value.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 By alleging unjust enrichment, TRA therefore sought to recover under a quasi-contract theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 2.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Elements of Quantum Meruit.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [27]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Unlike implied in fact contracts, quasi-contracts are not recognized in Guam by statute.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Cf. }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Title 18 GCA }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  86101 (1994) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 A contract is either express or implied.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ); Title 18 GCA }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  86103 (1994) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by conduct.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 )}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 This court has not had occasion to address the quasi-contract theory of recovery; thus, reference to the law in other jurisdictions is appropriate.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Where a quasi-contract claim seeks recovery for services rendered (}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ),
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [a]s would be expected, the doctrine [applicable] is in accord with that of quasi-contract generally: The essence of }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  liability is the receipt of a benefit by one party which would be inequitable for that party to retain.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The elements of }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  liability distilled from this essence are the performance of services by the plaintiff,
 the receipt of the benefit of those services by the defendant, and the unjustness of the defendant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s retention of that benefit without compensating the plaintiff. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Midcoast Aviation, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ., 907 F.2d 732, 737 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Telander v. Posejpal,}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 418 N.E.2d 444, 448 (1981)) (citations and quotation marks omitted); }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 see also Dudding v. Norton Frickey & Assocs.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 11 P.3d 441, 445 (Colo. 2000); }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
ProMax Dev. Corp.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 943 P.2d at 259.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [28]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab It is undisputed that TRA performed architectural services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The dispute in this case relates to the remaining two elements to recover under a quasi-contract claim, namely, whether Leo Palace received a benefit, and, if so, whether it would be unjust for Leo Palace to retain the benefit without compensating TRA.

\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 a.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Whether Leo Palace Received a Benefit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [29]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The underlying basis for awarding quantum meruit damages in a quasi-contract case is unjust enrichment of one party and unjust detriment to the other party.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Salamon v. Terra}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 477 N.E.2d 1029, 1031 (Mass. 1985); }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 see also Midcoast Aviation, Inc.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 907 F.2d at 737.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 A person is enriched if the person receives a benefit at another}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s expense.
}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 First Nationwide Sav. v. Perry}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 173, 176 (Ct. App. 1992) (citing R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 of}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estitution}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  1 cmt. a (1937)).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The legal question raised in this appeal is what constitutes a benefit as contemplated for recovery under }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meriut}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  pursuant to a quasi-contract theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
 }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [30]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace argues for the rule }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
that an architect cannot recover in quantum meruit unless his plans are actually used by the defendant.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s Brief, p. 20 (Apr. 16, 2004).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace maintains that TRA cannot recover under its }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 count because Leo Palace did not use or receive TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s plans for Package 2 and 3 work, and therefore did not benefit from TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s work. 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [31]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Courts have found, generally, that in terms of recovery under quasi-contract, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [a] benefit denotes any form of advantage.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Dudding}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 11 P.3d at 445; }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 see also}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 First Nationwide Sav. v. Perry}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 15 Cal. Rptr. 2d 173, 176 (Ct. App. 1992)}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 A person is enriched if the person receives a benefit at another}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s expense.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Benefit means any type of advantage.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [32]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Under this definition, if Leo Palace actually used TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services and TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s work product, then Leo Palace would have received a benefit necessary to recover under an unjust enrichment theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Courts have so held with regard to architectural services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See e.g.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 John D. Latimer & Assocs. v. Hous. Auth.}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 297 S.E.2d 779, 783 (N.C. App. Ct. 1982) (finding that because the plans }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
were received and used by defendant in defendant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s H.U.D. application, there was a sufficient showing of benefit to defendant from plaintiff}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ); }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Kleinschmidt, Brassette & Assocs., Inc. v. Ayres}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 368 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (La. Ct. App. 1979) (agreeing that the defendant received a benefit because the owner }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 accepted the final plans}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  and used the plans to obtain bids for the construction of the home).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 

\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [33]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s decision does not make clear whether Leo Palace actually received TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s work product.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court made the following factual findings: (1) TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
performance throughout the entire time it was responding to work requests from KKS was accepted by KKS, [Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s] agent,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 and (2) the }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
work was accepted and used towards procurement of the Building Permit for the design work of then Package 2.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s ER, p. 54 (Decision and Order, Sept. 9, 2003).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [34]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab We agree that the record supports the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s finding that TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s work was accepted and used by KKS in preparing the permit documents.}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   We note that in its Appellee}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s Brief, TRA claims that Leo Palace benefited from TRA}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s work because }{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Leo Palace used some part of TRA}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s work when Sumitomo prepared construction cost estimates.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
  Appellee}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s Brief, p. 30 (June 1, 2004).  Citing Mr. Ishii}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s testimony, TRA contends that Leo Palace used the electrical and mechanical design to obtain cost estimates for this work.  Appellee}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s Brief, p. 30 (citing Tr. vol. III, pp. 109-10).  Leo Palace argues that Mr. Ishii}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s testimony does not support the factual assertion.  Upon review of the transcripts, we cannot conclude that Mr. Ishii}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s testimony can reasonably be interpreted in the manner suggested by TRA.}}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
An obvious question is whether this fact necessarily signifies that Leo Palace accepted and received TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
We find it unnecessary, however, to reach this issue because we agree with the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s determination that because Leo Palace requested TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services, Leo Palace received a benefit regardless of whether Leo Palace actually received or used the plans.}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   TRA also contends that }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Leo Palace used TRA}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
s services to determine that KKS}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 s design was too expensive.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   There is evidence in the record to support this fact as Mr. Ishii testi
fied that Leo Palace informed KKS that if the design did not match the construction budget, the design would not be used.  On the one hand, this situation is analogous to cases where an owner declines to use plans because the construction costs would be t
oo high.  In these cases, the owner is deemed to have }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 benefited}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  from the services of the architect.  }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 See}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
Kleinschmidt, Brassette & Assocs., Inc. v. Ayres}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 , 368 So. 2d 1153, 1156 (La. Ct. App. 1979).  On the other hand, as will be discussed more fully }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 infra}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
, if TRA knew of Leo Palace}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
s construction budget in advance, and was told that the design would not be used if it was not within the construction budget, then legal principles would dictate that TRA would not be allowed to recover under }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 quantum meruit}{
\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 .}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [35]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s contention that a party receives no benefit from the architect}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services when an architect}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s plans are not received or used is appealing when viewing the concept of }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  in the sense that the other party has been advantaged.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The term }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  however, has been expanded to encompass situations where an actual benefit was not incurred.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Such expanded view of the term }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  was adopted by the trial court.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [36]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The trial court held that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
[a] benefit is conferred upon the other party whenever a person performs at the request of the other party.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s ER, p. 55 (Decision and Order, Sept. 9, 2003).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court relied upon several California cases for this proposition.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The court cited }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bodmer v. Turnage}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 233 P.2d 157 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951), }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart v. William Low Co.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 600 P.2d 1344 (Cal. 1979), and Chief Justice Traynor}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s dissent in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Coleman Eng}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
g Co. v. N. Am. Aviation, Inc.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 420 P.2d 713 (Cal. 1967).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [37]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab In }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bodmer v. Turnage}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 233 P.2d 157 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1951), the defendant/owner 
purchased lots in a desert resort development.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bodmer}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 233 P.2d at 158.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The owner contracted with the plaintiff/architect to conduct preliminary studies, working drawings and specifications for the owner}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s proposed development of the lots.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The contract provided that the architect would be compensated 6% of the value of the work as it progressed, but if the work designed by the architect was suspended or abandoned, the architect would be paid for his services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
 }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The architect prepared 
a total of five sets of studies and plans, each incorporating changes by the owner, with the final one being approved by the owner.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The construction on the project was eventually abandoned, and the architect sued the owner for the agreed contracted-u
pon price for the preliminary studies and for additional sums representing the reasonable value of the work done in preparing the plans and specifications.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court found in favor of the architect.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [38]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab On appeal, the owner argued that the architect could not recover because }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 required a showing of a benefit to the owner, and the owner }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 received no benefit from the plaintiff}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services since the plans prepared were not as such as he could use.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The defendant contended that he informed the architect that he could only build as many structures as within his budget of $50,000.00 to $60,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 159.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The appellate court found that the evidence instead supported the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s finding that the owner ordered plans for the whole project, and not simply parts which would fall within the budget.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The appellate court further held that the owner }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 derived the benefit he had in mind, and the fact that he later decided not to use the plans he had ordered in no way indicates an absence of benefit, within the meaning of the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}
{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  rule.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [39]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Over a decade after }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bodmer}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  was decided, the California Supreme Court decided }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Coleman Engineering Co. v. North American Aviation, Inc.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 420 P.2d 713 (Cal. 1967).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Coleman}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , Chief Justice Traynor wrote a dissenting opinion which analyzed the concept of benefit under a quasi-contract claim.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
This analysis was later relied upon by the California Supreme Court in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart v. William Low Co.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 600 P.2d 1344 (Cal. 1979), discussed }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 infra}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , when ruling on the precise nature of }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  necessary for recovery under a quasi-contact theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [40]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab In }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Coleman}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , Chief Justice Traynor recognized the rule that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [w]hen one person performs services at the request of another, the law raises an obligation to pay the reasonable value of the services.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Coleman Eng}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 g}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 420 P.2d at 728.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 He further recognized the requirement in seeking restitution that a benefit be conferred.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 729.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In explaining how the two principles were rationalized with each other under the Restatement of Restitution, Justice Traynor cited the Restatement}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s definition of benefit: }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 a benefit is conferred upon another if a person }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 performs services beneficial to }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 or at the request of the other}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . (emphasis added) (citing R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement of}{\scaps\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estitution}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  1 cmt. b (1937)).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Justice Traynor further explained that such reasoning was based on a pure legal fiction.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Specifically, where the services performed did not confer a benefit on the party requesting them, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 it is pure fiction to base restitution on a benefit conferred.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Instead, recovery is allowed not based on an actual benefit conferred, but based on }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 a moral obligation to restore to his original position a party who has acted to his detriment in reliance on a representation, technically unenforceable, by another that he will give value for a detriment suffered.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The Chief Justice cited a case from Connecticut, }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Kearns v. Andree}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 139 A. 695 (Conn. 1928), to support this theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Kearns}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , the 
plaintiff was able to recover for the value of services made to improve a building that the defendant intended to purchase but ultimately did not.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Coleman Eng}{
\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 g}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 420 P.2d at 729.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Although the defendant did not actually benefit from the plaintiff}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services, recovery was nonetheless allowed.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The rationale of the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Kearns }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 holding was this:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [T]he recovery of the reasonable value of services performed, without regard to actual benefit, should be allowed }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
where the parties have attempted to make a contract which is void because its terms are too indefinite, but where one party has, in good faith, and believing that a valid contract 
existed, performed part of the services which he had promised in reliance upon it.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  (citing }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Kearns}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 139 A. at 698).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Chief Justice Traynor ultimately opined that such rule should have been applied in its case because this rule }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 places the loss where it belongs }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 on the party whose request induced performance in justifiable reliance on the belief that the requested performance would be paid for.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{
\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
  In }{\i\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Coleman Engineering Co. v. North American Aviation, Inc.}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
, 420 P.2d 713 (Cal. 1967), the facts involved the construction of an item to be sold to the defendant, and not a request for services.  Chief Justice Traynor found this distinction to be unimportant.  He opined that the rationale for the rule, which soug
ht to compensate the plaintiff for actions performed in reliance on the defendant}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
s promise, was equally applicable where the request was for an item to be purchased as it was where the request was for a service.}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [41]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Finally, in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart v. William Low Co.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 600 P.2d 1344 (Cal. 1979), the California Supreme Court had occasion to revisit the principles announced in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bodmer }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 and by Chief Justice Traynor in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Coleman}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The issue in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  was articulated as follows:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 whet
her a party who expends funds and performs services at the request of another, under the reasonable belief that the requesting party will compensate him for such services, may recover in quantum meruit although the expenditures and services do not directl
y benefit property owned by the requesting party.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 600 P.2d}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 at 1345.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [42]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab There, the plaintiff allegedly expended money at the defendant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s request to commence construction of a mobile
 home park on the defendant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s land and an adjacent lot owned by a third party.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The plaintiff alleged that he entered into a contract with the defendant for the construction of the mobile home park, subject 
to conditions relating to financing and the procurement of labor and performance bonds for the work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 1346.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The defendant also entered into an agreement to purchase the adjacent parcel subject to financing.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 1345.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The plaintiff asserted tha
t the defendant instructed the plaintiff to commence work on the adjacent lot, waiving the previously agreed to conditions precedent, to protect the expiration of a special use permit for the construction.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The plaintiff commenced the construction and submitted a progress bill to the defendant.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The defendant refused to pay, and revealed that he had contracted with another firm for the construction.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 1346.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The plaintiff sued in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 to recover compensation for the services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 1345.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The trial court denied recovery for the sums expended for construction on the lot owned by the third party on the ground that the defendant did not receive a direct benefit from the construction.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The plaintiff appealed, and the California Supreme Court reversed.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [43]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab In its decision, the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  court discussed an earlier case of }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Rotea v. Izuel}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 95 P.2d 927 (Cal. 1939), wherein the court, relying on the historical basis of unjust enrichment of money had and received, held that there can be no }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  recovery where the defendant does not receive a direct benefit.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Rotea }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
court found that the benefit received in satisfaction of obtaining compliance with a request to perform services for a third person was only an }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 incidental benefit,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  and thus did not support recovery under a }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 theory.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 600 P.2d at 1348.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  court recognized that the holding in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Rotea}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  requiring a direct benefit has since been criticized }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 for its harshness,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  with commentators criticizing the requirement as }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 purely an historical one.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . (quoting Comment, Quasi-Contracts (1940) 28 Cal. L. Rev. 528, 530 & n. 18.).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [44]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 court found that 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [e]ven under contemporary authorities, the [}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Rotea}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
] court could have recognized, consistent with the orthodox principle of unjust enrichment, that a defendant who receives the satisfaction of obtaining another person}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s compliance with the defendant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s request to perform services incurs an obligation to pay for labor and materials expended in reliance on that request.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In support of this proposition, the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
court cited comment b to the Restatement of Restitution }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  1, wherein it is stated that a }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
person confers a benefit on another if he . . . performs services beneficial to or at the request of the other . . . .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . (quoting R}{
\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement of}{\scaps\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estitution}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  1 cmt. b (1937)) (ellipses in original).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The court interpreted the Restatement as recognizing that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 performance of services at another}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s behest may itself constitute }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  such that an obligation to make restitution may arise.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }
{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The court found that other courts, including }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bodmer}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , have adopted this rule.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Furthermore, the court stated that the issue of }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 whether we should broaden t
he basis of quasi-contractual recovery so as to prevent any unconscionable injury to the plaintiff}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  was not novel in California, as it was expressly discussed in Chief Justice Traynor}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s dissent in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Coleman.}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 discussion, }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 supra}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The court summarized Justice Traynor}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s opinion as }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 cogently urg[ing] that we abandon the unconscionable requirement of }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 to the defendant and allow recovery in quantum meruit whenever a party acts to his detriment in reliance on another}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s representation that he will give compensation for the detriment suffered.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 1349-50.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 

\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [45]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Finally, the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  court rationalized its holding by analogizing the ruling with other }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 parallel contractual doctrines}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 based upon a theory of }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 justifiable reliance,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  including theories of recovery for part performance of an invalid contract and promissory estoppel.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 1351.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Surveying prior case law as well as the }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
equitable foundations}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  underlying these alternate theories of recovery, the court held that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 compensation for a party}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s performance should be paid by the person whose request induced the performance.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 . at 1351-52. 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [46]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab We agree with the reasoning articulated under the preceding California authority and adopt it in this jurisdiction.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
We are persuaded by the recognition in comment b of section 1 of the Restatement of Restitution, that a }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
person confers a benefit on another if he . . . performs services beneficial to or at the request of the other . . . .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement of}{
\scaps\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estitution}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  1 cmt. b (1937).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Under the Restatement, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 performance of services at another}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s behest may itself constitute }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  such that an obligation to make restitution may arise.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [47]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The Restatement rule is not inconsistent with the theory of }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  underlying the law of restitution.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Where a person requests an architect to prepare plans, the person requesting }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
derived the benefit he had in mind, and the fact that he later decided not to use the plans he had ordered in no way indicates an absence of benefit, within the meaning of the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  rule.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bodmer, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 233 P.2d at 159.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [48]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Furthermore, the Restatement rule furthers the equitable underpinnings of the theory of quasi-contract.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
When two parties act in furtherance of the performance of services but fail to execute a contract to express their intent, and are both at fault for this failure, the loss suffered should be borne by the person who requested performance from the other.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 It would be unjust to force the loss to be borne by the person whose performance was undertaken upon reasonable reliance on a request to perform.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Recovery, therefore, is allowed based on }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
a moral obligation to restore to his original position a party who has acted to his detriment in reliance on a representation, technically unenforceable, by another that he will give value for a detriment suffered.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Coleman Eng}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 g}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 420 P.2d at 729.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The rule }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 place[s] the loss where it belongs }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  on the party whose request induced performance in justifiable reliance on the belief that the requested performance would be paid for.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [49]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab We therefore hold that a person performing at the request of another }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 should be paid by the person whose request induced the performance.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Earhart, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 600 P.2d at 1352.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In receiving requested performance, the law implies that the defendant received a }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  regardless of whether an actual benefit was received, and recovery under a quasi-contract theory should be permitted in such circumstances.

\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [50]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The trial court found that Leo Palace benefitted from TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services because TRA }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 scheduled its work to meet the short demand of a scheduled completion date and 
continuously performed to meet the deadline scheduled until terminated by [Leo Palace].}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s ER, p. 55 (Decision and Order, Sept. 9, 2003).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court ascertained that because TRA performed in accordance with a schedule, TRA was working at the request of Leo Palace.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Furthermore, the trial court determined that the evidence indicated the parties had previously engaged in a similar course of action with reg
ard to Package 1, whereby TRA initially started work without a fee agreement, with the parties later agreeing on a fee agreement towards the completion of the deadline date for Package 1.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [51]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The record supports the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s findings.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Throughout early to mid 2001, TRA performed services for Leo Palace for Package 1.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
In June of 2001, Leo Palace and TRA agreed on a fee for the work on Package 1; thus, the two companies were actively engaged in a working relationship before ever reaching a fee agreement.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s letter dated July 24, 2001, specifically stated that Leo Palace hired KKS for Packages 2 and 3, and requested that TRA work together with KKS as its local partner.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Furthermore, Mr. Ruth testified that, pursuant to information from KKS, the October 31, 2001 deadline for completion of the documents for Packages 2 and 3 was imposed by Leo Palace on KKS.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 These facts support a finding that TRA performed the work for Packages 2 and 3 at the request of Leo Palace.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [52]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Although Mr. Ishii testified that Leo Palace never instructed TRA to perform the architectural work and Leo Palace was awaiting a fee proposal prior to giving approval to star
t work, the existence of this evidence does not warrant overturning the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s contrary finding unless it can be said that the lower court definitely committed a mistake.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s determinations on conflicting or ambiguous evidence should be accorded weight.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
 }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Yang v. Hong}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 1998 Guam 9, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  7.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Under }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Yang,}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 we find that the trial court did not clearly err in its factual finding that TRA performed at the request of Leo Palace.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [53]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Because the record supports the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s finding that Leo Palace requested archi
tectural services from TRA, we hold that the trial court correctly concluded that Leo Palace received a benefit from TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s services.}{\insrsid223508 
\par }{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 b.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Whether it would be unjust for Leo Palace to retain the benefit without compensating the plaintiff.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par [54]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab We must next decide whether the final element of recovery under a quasi-contract claim was satisfied.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Specifically, we must review whether the transaction took place in circumstances under which it would be unjust for Leo Palace to retain the benefit of TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s services without compensating TRA. 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [55]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
[A] recovery on a quantum meruit basis may not be obtained where the services (even if beneficial) are rendered with no anticipation that compensation is to be received. . . . .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
There can be no recovery for services rendered voluntarily and with no expectation }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 at the time of the rendition}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  that they will be compensated.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Under such circumstances no obligation is incurred.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Broughton v. Johnson}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 545 S.E.2d 370, 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001); }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 see also Sparks v. Gustafson}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 750 P.2d 338, 342 (Alaska 1988) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Courts will allow the defendant to retain a benefit without compensating plaintiff in several situations, one of which is . . . where the benefit was given gratuitously without expectation of payment.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [56]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The trial c
ourt allowed recovery for architectural services performed up until October 23, 2001, the date Mr. Ishii faxed a letter to Mr. Ruth, stating that Leo Palace received the revised estimated design fee for Packages 2 and 3, but that TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fee was too high and Leo Palace would not be hiring TRA to prepare the permit documents.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
After a thorough review of the record, we find that it was not reasonable for TRA to expect payment for services rendered after October 15, 2001, and the trial court erred in allowing recovery for services performed through October 23, 2001.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [57]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab An examination of the undisputed facts is relevant here.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
First, there was evidence in the record which supported a finding that TRA expected to be compensated for its work prior to October 15, 2001.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Specifically, Mr. Ruth testified that in the late 80}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s and early 90}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s, TRA performed work for Leo P
alace without a fee agreement in place.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In fact, TRA commenced work for Package 1 without a fee agreement.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
A local architect and expert witness, Jack Jones, testified that it was common industry practice for architects to perform services prior to agreeing to a fee.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Based on the circumstances between the parties and the industry practices, it could rationally be concluded that TRA expected payment during the period before the parties reached a fee agreement.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [58]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab However, TRA was informed on October 10, 2001, by a representative of KKS, that Leo Palace had concerns with TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s fee proposal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The message from the KKS representative was not detailed but put TRA on notice regarding Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s assessment of the fee for the services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 On October 15, 2001, Mr. Ruth, Mr. Ishii and Mr. Hyodo met, and Mr. Ishii informed Mr. Ruth that Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s budget for the Package 2 and 3 work was between $300,000.00 and $400,000.00, and TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s estimate exceeded the amount Leo Palace was willing to pay for the work.
}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 While the parties discussed the fee between October 15, 2001, and October 23, 2001, it is undisputed that even during discussions on October 18, 2001, when TRA faxed Leo Palace a p
roposed new fee of $659,000.00, Leo Palace maintained it could not pay more that $300,000.00 to $400,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Although Mr. Ishii only put in writing on October 23, 2001, that TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fee of $592,000.00, as indicated in the letter from Mr. Ruth on October 22, 2001, was too high, and that Leo Palace was not going to hire TRA for the work, Mr. Ishii}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s letter evidenced what was made clear on October 15, 2001; specifically, that Leo Palace could not pay more than between $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 for the work.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Mr. Ruth testified at trial that as of October 15, 2001, he was aware he could not complete the work for between $300,000.00 and $400,000.00.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [59]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Based on the undispute
d facts, we cannot conclude that TRA had a reasonable expectation of payment, without a fee arrangement in place, for work completed after October 15, 2001, the date Leo Palace informed TRA that the budget for the permit documents was between $300,000.00 
and $400,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Because it was not reasonable for TRA to expect compensation for services performed after October 15, 2001, TRA cannot recover for services rendered after that date.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Broughton}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 545 S.E.2d at 372.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s contrary finding was against the clear weight of the evidence and was clearly erroneous as a matter of law.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
In light of the evidence, we hold that the trial court erred in allowing }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered after October 15, 2001.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 3.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Other Challenges to the }{\b\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum Meruit}{
\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  Award}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [60]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace raises other challenges to the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s award of }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  recovery which we discuss in turn.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 a.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Quantum meruit recovery is precluded when an architect cannot meet an owner}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s budget}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [61]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace claims that this case is governed by special rules pertaining to quantum meruit recovery involving architectural services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace argues that where the architect is given a budget, and the plans exceed the budget, then the architect is not allowed to recover for services rendered because in such case the owner has not received the benef
it of its bargain.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [62]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Several legal principles apply to the recovery of services for architectural work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Where architects understand that the owner is working within a construction budget, and}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 construction based on the plans far exceeds the budget, the
n the architect cannot recover for the value of his services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Kleinschmidt}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 368 So. 2d at 1155.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [63]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab This rule does not, however, apply in this case.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA and Leo Palace did not discuss a construction budget.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 At trial, Mr. Ruth explained that the construction cost estimate was not included in the scope of TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s work on the project.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Only the budget for the architecture fees was discussed, and not the overall construction budget.}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   There was evidence that Leo 
Palace discussed the construction budget with KKS.  However, the evidence does not reveal that the construction budget was discussed with TRA.}}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Rather than applying the above-mentioned rule, the converse rule applies in this case.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Specifically, if there is no understanding as to a maximum construction budget, then the architect can generally recover for the value of his services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .; 
}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 cf. Matthews v. Neal Greene & Clark}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 338 S.E.2d 496, 498 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Where an architect is employed by the owner of land to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of a building, and does so, and 
the owner decides not to have the building erected, because of the estimated cost, but nevertheless retains the plans and specifications, in the absence of any guaranty as to the cost of the building, or agreement as to his compensation for preparing the 
plans and specifications, the architect would be entitled to recover the reasonable value of his services in preparing and furnishing the plans and specifications.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) (quoting }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Douglas v. Rogers}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 73 S.E. 700 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912)).
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 b.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Leo Palace was not unjustly enriched because it paid another architect $300,000 to prepare the necessary plans.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par [64]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace also argues that it would be unjust for them to compensate TRA because Leo Palace paid MCL to prepare the plans for Packages 2 and 3.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Leo Palace contends that it would be unfair to force them to pay twice.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 This argument also fails.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 As explained earlier, }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [t]he injustice of the enrichment or detriment in quasi-contract equates with the defeat of someone}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s reasonable expectations.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Salamon v. Terra}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 477 N.E.2d 1029, 1031 (Mass. 1985) (quoting 1A Corbin on Contracts }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  19 (1963)).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 If the plaintiff reasonably expected to be paid, it would be unjust for the defendant to accept the service without compensating the plaintiff.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The record supports the conclusion that TRA reasona
bly expected to be paid for a portion of the services rendered and it would be unjust for Leo Palace to withhold such payment regardless of whether Leo Palace eventually hired another architecture firm to prepare the permit documents.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 c.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Quantum Meruit is not an Appropriate Remedy for }{
\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Fruitless Negotiations, Frustration or Disappointed Expectations,}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{
\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  or Permitted Without an Expectation of Payment by Both Parties.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par [65]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Finally, Leo Palace contends that the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  award was erroneous because recovery under the theory is not allowed for }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 fruitless negotiation[s], frustration, or disappointed expectations,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  nor is recovery allowed in the absence of an expectation of payment by both parties.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s Brief, pp. 34, 37 (Apr. 16, 2004).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We are not persuaded by either argument.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The parties dealt, both in the early 1990}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s and with Phase 1 of the 2001 project, without a fee agreement in place.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Furthermore, Leo Palace requested that TRA work with KKS with regard to the remaining phases in its letter of July 24, 2001.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 This course of conduct, coupled with Leo Palace}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s indication to proceed with the project, does not support Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s claim that the parties were merely negotiating.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The evidence of the parties}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  prior dealings and Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s instructions during the initial work period for Packages 2 and 3 satisfies the test for recovery under a }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 theory, specifically, that TRA reasonably expected payment for work done prior to October 15, 2001, and that it would not be unjust to impose a contract under the law requiring Leo Palace to pay TRA for such work. 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 B.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Duty to Mitigate Damages}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [66]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace maintains that the trial court erred in not finding that TRA failed to mitigate its damages.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Leo Palace argues that during the time period between July 24, 2001, and October 23, 2001, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
[t]here were numerous milestones . . . that would have caused any prudent architect with any concern for mitigating its damages to seek clarification from the owner, the party who would be actually paying TRA}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fees.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s Brief, p. 43 (Apr. 16. 2004).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Of most significance was Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s reference to an October 10, 2001 telephone call from KKS to TRA which directly communicated to TRA that TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s fee proposal had not been accepted by Leo Palace, and Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s indication on October 15, 2001, that Leo Palace could not pay more that $300,000.00 to $400,000.00.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Mr. Ruth further testified that he knew on October 15, 2001, that TRA could not do the work for this amount.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace states that any w
ork performed after this time clearly could have been mitigated, and that the trial court should have denied recovery based on this evidence.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [67]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab TRA postulates that the rule of mitigation of damages does not apply in this case.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA nonetheless acknowled
ges that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 in order to recover in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  its expectation that it would be paid . . . must have been reasonable.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellee}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s Brief, p. 41 (June 1, 2004).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 TRA contends that the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s decision on this issue was supported by the evidence in the record.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [68]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab This court has not had occasion to determine whether the doctrine of mitigation applies in quasi-contract cases.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
We note that under the Restatement of Contracts, mitigation is required where restitution is sought in a breach of contract case.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Section 352 of the First Restatement of Contracts provides:

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Restitu
tion will not be awarded with respect to a part performance rendered with knowledge that the other party has repudiated the contract, if the total amount awarded would be increased thereby.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  (F}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 irst}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) }{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 of}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  C}{
\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ont.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  352 (1932).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 While the above-stated rule relates to a breach of contract situation, the rationale in support of the rule need not be limited to breach of contract cases.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The comment to }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 352 explains that this rule is analogous to the rule regarding }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 avoidable harm,}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  and clarifies that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [a]fter repudiation
 of a contract, the injured party cannot increase his recovery, in either damages or restitution, by continuing to perform when he knows that the other party no longer desires his performance.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  (F}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 irst}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) }{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 of}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  C}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ont.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  352 cmt. a (1932).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The illustration in the Restatement sheds light on the practicality of the mitigation theory where restitution is claimed.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 There, it is stated:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 A contracts to erect a building 
for B on specified terms. B repudiates the contract and orders A to stop work. A cannot get judgment for the value of work done after the repudiation and in disregard of B}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s order.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 R}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  (F}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 irst}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) }{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 of}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  C}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ont.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  352 illus. 1 (1932).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [69]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Applying the same logic here, if Leo Palace requested that TRA perform services, TRA should not be able to get judgment for the value of work done after TRA was aware of Leo Palace
}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s intent to have TRA cease working.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [70]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The lower court stated: }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
In assessing the . . . amounts as [p]laintiff}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
damages, the Court finds that mitigation is inappropriate in this matter.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s ER, p. 59 (Decision and Order, Sept. 9, 2003).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 It is unclear from this 
statement whether the trial court found that mitigation did not apply under a quasi-contract theory, or, rather, that the facts did not warrant application of the doctrine of mitigation.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 

\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [71]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab We find it unnecessary to decide whether the doctrine of mitig
ation applies in a quasi-contract case because recovery under quasi-contract is limited to the amount that the defendant was unjustly enriched.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Recovery under unjust enrichment requires examination into whether the plaintiff acted reasonably in incurring his losses.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 As stated earlier, the rule is that }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
[e]ven where a person has conferred a benefit upon another, . . . he is entitled to compensation only if it would be just and equitable to require compensation under the circumstances.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Sparks}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 750 P.2d at 342.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Even assuming a benefit was conferred by the plaintiff}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s performance, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant was enriched unjustly if the defendant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s actions reflect a desire that the plaintiff cease performance.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 In such case, it could not be said that the plaintiff reasonably expected compensation for his services.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Salamon}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 477 N.E.2d at 1031.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Moreover, if the theory behind the }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 benefit}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 to the defendant is premised upon the fact that the defendant }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 requested}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  performance, then the benefit is lost where the plaintiff}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s perfo
rmance of services was undertaken after the defendant acts in a manner which indicates he has rescinded the request for services.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [72]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The rule of mitigation in breach of contract cases seeking restitution prohibits recovery where the plaintiff }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 continu[es] to perform when he knows that the other party no longer desires his performance.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 R}{
\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 estatement}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  (F}{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 irst}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) }{\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 of}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  C}{
\scaps\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ont.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  352 cmt. a (1932).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Because quasi-contract focuses on the unjust enrichment of the defendant, the requirements underlying a finding that the defendant was enriched }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 unjustly}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 overcomes the utility of imposing a mitigation requirement in quasi-contract cases.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [73]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab As we have explained earlier, it was reasonable for TRA to expect compensation for work performed up until October 15, 2001, but not after.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Whether under a mitigation theory, or under the theory for recovery under a quasi-contract claim, TRA cannot recover after October 15, 2001.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
After that date, it could either be concluded that, consistent with mitigation principles, TRA continued to perform when they knew that Leo Palace }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 no longer desire[d their] performance,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
., or, under the quasi-contract elements, that TRA had no reasonable expectation of compensation thereby rendering it unjust to require Leo Palace to compensate TRA for the work.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Because the result would be the same in light of our holding that TRA cannot be awarded for work done after October 15, 2001, we decline to reverse the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s award under a theory of mitigation.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 C.}{\b\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Prejudgment Interest}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [74]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Finally, Leo Palace challenges the lower court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s judgment awarding prejudgment interest to TRA.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace contends that prejudgment interest is not allowed under Title 20 GCA }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  2110, which allows the recovery of interest only on damages which are }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Title 20 GCA }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  2110 (1998).}{\cs15\super\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\f41\super\insrsid223508 \chftn }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508   That section provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 Every person who is entitled to recover damages certa
in, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him, upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the a
ct of the creditor, from paying the debt.  
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 
\par Title 20 GCA }{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\f41\fs20\insrsid223508  2110 (1998).}{\f41\insrsid223508 
\par }}}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Leo Palace argues that prejudgment interest is not allowed in this case because an award based on }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
is unliquidated, and not }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Id}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We find that Leo Palace waived a challenge to the court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}
{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s award of interest, and therefore decline to address this issue.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [75]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Under Rule 46 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party must, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, make[ ] known to the court the action which the party desires the court to take or the party}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefor.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Guam R. Civ. P. 46.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Leo Palace asserts that TRA argued for the first time in its post-trial brief that the lower court should award TRA prejudgment interest at the statutory rate of 6%, and that Leo Palace never had an opportunity to challenge TRA}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s entitlement to statutory prejudgment interest before the trial court awarded statutory interest in its Decision and Order. 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [76]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace, however, had the opportunity to challenge or request reconsideration of the lower court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s decision to award prejudgment interest under Rule 59(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Guam R. Civ. P. 59(e) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 );}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 2001 Guam 20, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  9 (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted (1) if the movant demonstrates that it is necessary to prevent manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based; (2) to allow the moving part
y to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The objective of post-judgment motions }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
is to call to the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s attention an alleged mistake in the judgment and effect a ruling thereon, which }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 might entirely obviate the need of an appeal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '" }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Franki Found. Co. v. Alger-Rau & Assocs., Inc.}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 513 F.2d 581, 586 (3d Cir. 1975) (quoting }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Welch & Corr Constr. Corp. v. Wheeler}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 470 F.2d 140, 141 (1st Cir. 1972)).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [77]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Leo Palace did not object to the court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s award of prejudgment interest at any point after the lower court issued its Decision and Order, or after the judgment was issued.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Such inaction, under general circumstances, amounts to a waiver of this issue.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Pomerleau v. West Springfield Pub. Schs.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 362 F.3d 143, 146-47 (1st Cir. 2004) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
A party who fails to object to a motion to dismiss must raise any claims of error by filing the appropriate post-judgment motion, or forfeit his or her right to raise those claims before this court.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 To hold otherwise would undermine the ability of the district courts to serve as an effective and efficient forum for the resolution of disputes.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ); }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Jovanovich v. United States}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 813 F.2d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 1987) (declining to address an argument raised on appeal where the defendant }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 never argued either issue to the court during trial,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  never }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 request[ed] a finding with respect to either issue after trial}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ; and }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 offered no objection to the findings of fact and conclusions of law }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
after the court entered them}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 .}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) (emphasis added).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [78]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Furthermore, as a matter of general practice, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 this court will not address an argument raised for the first time on appeal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 n}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 2002 Guam 4, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 20 (declining to address an argument raised by the appellant for the first time on appeal); }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 B.M. Co. v. Avery}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 2001 Guam 27, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  33 (rejecting the argument that the trial court used an improper measure of damages 
for claims regarding construction defects because the issue was raised for the first time on appeal); }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Guam Bar Ethics Comm.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 2001 Guam 20 at }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  39 (declining to address the appellant}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s argument that the trial court erroneously granted a motion to amend under GRCP 59(e) where the movant failed to comply with Rule 5A(2) of the Superior Court Rules because the issue was raised for the first time on appeal).}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 This rule applies where a party fails to raise an argument in a post-judgment motion.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bueno v. City of Donna}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 714 F.2d 484, 493-94 (5 th Cir. 1983) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 It is well-established that there can be no appellate review of allegedly excessive or inadequate damages if the trial court was not given the opportunity to exercise its discretion on a motion for a new trial.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [79]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Other courts have declined to address challenges to an award of prejudgment interest which were raised for the first time on appeal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Ruck Corp. v. Woudenberg}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ,}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 611 P.2d 106, 109-10 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The Woudenbergs raise for the first time on appeal the propriety of the trial court's award of prejudgment interest.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Having failed to object in the trial court, they are now precluded from raising this issue.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 );}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 Evans v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 815 P.2d 550, 560 (Kan. 1991) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 As to the prejudgment interest aspect of this issue, the Court of Appeals correctly held that this was a matter not raised before the trial court and hence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal . . .}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We similarly decline to address the issue in this appeal.
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [80]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab In }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Dumaliang v. Silan}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , this court clarified that the rule precluding appellate review of newly raised issues

\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 is discretionary, and an appel
late court may recognize such exceptions as: (1) when review is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity of the judicial process; (2) when a change in law raises a new issue while an appeal is pending; and (3) when the is
sue is purely one of law.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Dumaliang}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 2000 Guam 24 at }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  12 n.1.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Though not elucidated in }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Duamlaing}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, the exceptions enumerated are in the disjunctive.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Thus, }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [i]f one of the exceptions is applicable, we have discretion to address the issue.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bolker v. Comm}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 r of Internal Revenue}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 1985). 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [81]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The court could potentially exercise discretion under the third exception wherein review may be granted if }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below, or the pertinent record has been fully developed . . . .}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Bolker}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 760 F.2d at 1039.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Whether prejudgment interest was properly awarded pursuant to a }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  claim arguably meets this standard.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Folgers}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Architects Ltd. v. Kerns}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 633 N.W.2d 114, 128 (Neb. 2001) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [R]egarding the prejudgment interest awarded . . . and whether . . . damages were liquidated, our scope of review is de novo.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) (quoting }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Blue Valley Co-op. v. Nat}{\i\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 l Farmers Org.,}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  257 Neb. 751, 757, 600 N.W.2d 786, 792 (1999)).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }
{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 There are, however, different policies that interact in this case.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The first is the policy underlying the rule requiring arguments to be raised at the trial court in the first instance.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
The policy here is to allow the trial judge the opportunity to address potential errors in rulings which could possibly negate the ne
cessity of an appeal, and further ensure that the issues are adequately briefed at the lower court and a record developed for appeal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Monaghan v. Hill}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
, 140 F.2d 31, 33-34 (9th Cir. 1944) (recognizing that the purpose of Rule 46 requiring a party to }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
inform[ ] the court of supposed error is to give it an opportunity to reconsider its ruling and to make any changes deemed advisable}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [82]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab The other applicable policy is that which underlies the rule allowing for discretionary review of questions raised for the first time on appeal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The availability of discretionary review is }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 established for the purpose of
 orderly administration and the attainment of justice.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 " }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Hawkins v. Allstate Ins. Co.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 733 P.2d 1073, 1086 (Ariz. 1987).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Our exercise of discretion to review an issue raised for the first time on appeal is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where review is necessary to address a miscarriage of justice or clarify significant issues of law.
}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See United States v. Munoz}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 746 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir. 1984) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The gener
al rule of this circuit is that the district court will not be reversed on a contention not presented to it, absent exceptional circumstances, significant questions of general impact, or where injustice might otherwise result.}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
With regard to the latter, a review of legal questions should be undertaken only when the policy favoring discretionary review outweighs the rule favoring raising the issues below in the first instance.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 While the issue presented of whether prejudgment interest may be included as part of }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
 recovery is interesting, there was no extraordinary reason evident for Leo Palace}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s failure to raise the issue in the trial court.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{
\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 See Taylor v. Sentry Life Ins. Co.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 , 729 F.2d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 1984) (}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The general rule is that an issue will not be considered for the first time on appeal.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 Before the appellate court will address such an argu
ment, the plaintiff must show exceptional circumstances why the issue was not raised below.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 "}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 ) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
Under these circumstances, we do not find that the lower court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
s award of prejudgment interest warrants our exercise of discretion to deviate from the general rule against addressing issues raised for the first time on appeal.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 IV.}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid331254 {\b\insrsid331254 
\par }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 [83]}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 \tab Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court correctly allowed for }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
recovery under a quasi-contract theory for work performed by TRA prior to October 15, 2001, but that the court erred in allowing recovery for work performed after that date.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 The trial court}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s judgment is }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 AFFIRMED }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 in part and }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 REVERSED }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
in part, and the matter is }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 REMANDED}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254  for a recalculation of the }{\i\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 quantum meruit }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 
award and entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We also find that Leo Palace waived its present challenge to the trial court}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{
\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s award of prejudgment interest.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 We therefore }{\b\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 AFFIRM }{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 this aspect of the trial court}{
\insrsid331254\charrsid331254 '}{\insrsid223508\charrsid331254 s judgment.}{\insrsid331254\charrsid331254  
\par }}