FIDIC
Quantum Meruit Under FIDIC — Recovery Where No Price Exists
Where a FIDIC contract is incomplete, ambiguous, or where work is performed outside the contract scope without an agreed price, quantum meruit may provide recovery — but on a fair value basis, not necessarily the contract price or the contractor’s tender rate.
5 min read · Updated 23/05/2026
|
By Basel Al Najjar Civil Engineering Consultant, DIAC Arbitrator, Tribunal Chairman and Accredited Expert Witness. Over two decades advising UAE contractors, developers and law firms on FIDIC, claims and arbitration. |
In this article
Key takeaway
Quantum meruit is a remedy of last resort — it arises where no enforceable contract exists for the work performed, and the employer has received and accepted the benefit of that work. Recovery is limited to a fair and reasonable price, not necessarily the contractor’s tender rate or full profit expectation.
1. When Quantum Meruit Arises in Construction
Quantum meruit (Latin: “as much as he has deserved”) arises in construction in several scenarios:
- The parties agree in principle but no formal contract is executed; work begins under a letter of intent; and the formal contract is never finalised
- The contractor performs work that is not covered by the contract scope — neither a variation nor a contractual obligation, but work requested by the employer and performed
- An ambiguity or gap in the contract makes performance impossible under the agreed terms, and the contractor performs reasonably necessary work to accomplish the employer’s objective
- The contract is void or unenforceable, but the contractor has performed work and the employer has benefited
In each case, the contractor has no contractual entitlement (because the contract does not cover the work or is non-existent), but the employer has received a benefit (the work is done and useful). Quantum meruit bridges this gap by requiring the employer to pay a fair price.
2. The Legal Principle — Unjust Enrichment
Quantum meruit is grounded in the law of restitution and unjust enrichment. The principle is that it is unjust for the employer to retain a benefit (the completed work) without paying for it.
The seminal case in construction is British Steel Corporation v Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 All ER 504. The contractor performed significant work under a letter of intent pending a formal contract that never materialised. The court held that the contractor was entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis — payment for the work done at a fair and reasonable value — despite the absence of an enforceable contract.
However, the court also held that quantum meruit recovery is limited: it does not include loss of bargain (the difference between the contract price the contractor would have charged and the fair value actually recovered) or contractual remedies (damages for breach, penalty provisions, and so forth).
3. Conditions for Recovery
Three conditions must be satisfied for quantum meruit recovery:
The Defendant Was Enriched
The employer received a benefit — work was performed, materials delivered, or services rendered, and that work is now part of the completed project.
At the Claimant’s Expense
The contractor incurred the cost of that work — paying for labour, materials, supervision, and plant. The contractor bore the cost; the employer received the benefit.
It Would Be Unjust to Retain the Benefit Without Payment
It would be inequitable for the employer to have the benefit of the completed work without compensating the contractor for it. This is typically the case where the work was requested, accepted, and incorporated into the project.
4. Measurement of the Fair Value
The quantum meruit recovery is assessed as the “fair and reasonable value” of the work — not the contract price (because there is no valid contract), not the contractor’s tender rate (which may be inflated), and not necessarily what the contractor actually spent (which may be inefficient).
Fair value is typically assessed by reference to: (1) what reasonable contractors would have charged for similar work in similar circumstances; (2) industry rates and benchmarks; (3) cost-plus-reasonable-profit methodologies; and (4) expert evidence from quantity surveyors or construction cost specialists.
The court or tribunal will not award the full contract price (because the parties never agreed to that price). It will assess what a reasonable price would have been, absent an agreed contract. This may be higher or lower than the contractor’s tender, depending on the specific circumstances.
5. Limitations and Exclusions
Quantum meruit is not a path to unlimited recovery. Key limitations include:
- No loss of bargain: The contractor cannot recover the profit it expected to earn under a contract price, only the fair value of the work done
- No contractual remedies: The contractor cannot claim damages for breach, penalties, or other contractual consequences — only the fair value
- No recovery for work the employer did not request or accept: If the contractor performed work gratuitously or without the employer’s knowledge or acceptance, quantum meruit is unavailable
- No recovery where a contract exists but is unpriced: If there is an enforceable contract (even if prices are missing or ambiguous), the court will try to fill the gaps and enforce the contract, rather than resort to quantum meruit
6. Application Under FIDIC
Under FIDIC contracts, quantum meruit claims most commonly arise where variations are ordered but not valued, or where work is performed beyond the contract scope without a written variation instruction or agreed price.
FIDIC Clause 13 (Variations) contemplates that variations will be valued: either at contract rates, or if not available, at fair rates. This variation valuation mechanism is distinct from quantum meruit — it applies where there is a contract and a variation is ordered, but the price is unclear.
Quantum meruit arises more rarely under FIDIC — typically in circumstances where the contract is genuinely non-existent or void, or where work is performed with the engineer’s approval but entirely outside the contract scope and without any price mechanism.
The contractor’s best protection is to ensure that every variation is formally documented, valued, and approved by the engineer before work commences. Reliance on quantum meruit as a fallback is risky and rarely produces full recovery.
Work performed without a clear contract or price?
We advise on quantum meruit recovery, fair value assessment, and the constraints on restitution claims. This remedy is available but should be treated as a last resort, not a strategy.
Related reading
|
FIDIC Variations Under FIDIC Clause 13The contractual mechanism for pricing work beyond the original scope — preferable to quantum meruit. |
FIDIC Letters of Intent — Binding Effect and Quantum MeruitWhen letters of intent fail to become formal contracts and quantum meruit arises. |
FIDIC Contract Formation Under FIDICHow FIDIC contracts are formed and what happens when formation is incomplete. |
Quantum Meruit Assessment and Valuation
We advise on fair value assessment, restitution claims, and the limitations of quantum meruit recovery. This remedy is available but constrained — proper contract documentation remains the best protection.
Book a 30-Minute Case Assessment →
Offices in Dubai · Available for instructions across the UAE and GCC
Disclaimer: This article constitutes general information for construction professionals. It is not legal advice. Quantum meruit recovery depends on the specific factual circumstances, the applicable law, and the evidence available. Seek advice from a UAE-qualified legal practitioner before relying on quantum meruit as a recovery mechanism.