Planche v Colburn [1831] EWHC KB J56 (14 June 1831)

An author was contracted to write a book for a series. The publisher then cancelled the series, preventing completion. The court held the author was entitled to reasonable payment for the work he had already completed, establishing a key principle of quantum meruit.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mr Planche, was engaged by the defendants, publishers Colburn & Co., to write a volume on ‘Costume and Ancient Armour’ for a series called ‘The Juvenile Library’. The agreed fee upon completion was £100. The plaintiff commenced the work, conducting research and preparing a portion of the manuscript. Before he could complete and deliver the entire work, the defendants abandoned the publication of ‘The Juvenile Library’ altogether. The defendants offered to pay the plaintiff for the work done if he would deliver the manuscript for them to publish in another format, but the plaintiff declined and commenced an action to recover payment for the work he had completed.

Issues

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff could recover remuneration for the work he had partially performed, given that he had not completed the contract as originally specified. Specifically, the court had to determine:
1. Whether the original special contract was still open, or if it had been rescinded by the defendants’ abandonment of the project.
2. If the contract was rescinded, whether the plaintiff could sue on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of the work he had performed, despite not having delivered the final manuscript.

Judgment

The case was first heard by Tindal C.J. and a jury. The jury found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding him £50 in damages. The defendants then moved for a new trial, arguing the plaintiff could not recover on the special contract as it was not completed, nor on a quantum meruit basis as the work was not delivered and they remained willing to publish it, albeit in a different format.

The Court of King’s Bench upheld the original verdict, refusing the motion for a new trial. The judges reasoned that the defendants’ action of abandoning the series had prevented the plaintiff from fulfilling his side of the contract.

Reasoning of the Court

Chief Justice Tindal articulated the core reasoning, stating that since the defendants had made it impossible for the plaintiff to complete the work as originally contemplated, the plaintiff had a right to be paid for the work he had already done. He stated:

I agree that, when a special contract is in existence and open, the plaintiff cannot sue on a quantum meruit: part of the question here, however, was, whether the contract did not continue to be open. The defendant, by putting an end to “The Juvenile Library,” had rendered it impossible for the plaintiff to complete the work for which he was engaged; and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to a reasonable remuneration for the part of it which he had executed…

The court also held that the plaintiff was not obliged to accept the defendants’ offer to publish the work in a different format or as part of a different publication. As Parke J. noted:

The defendants had no right to his services on a different work for the same price.

This confirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to treat the contract as rescinded and sue for the value of his labour without having to tender the incomplete manuscript.

Implications

The decision in Planche v Colburn is a leading authority on the principle of quantum meruit (‘as much as he has deserved’). It establishes that where one party to a contract has performed part of their obligation and is then prevented from completing it by the other party’s repudiation or abandonment of the contract, the innocent party is not left without a remedy. They can elect to sue for damages for breach of the special contract or, alternatively, they can treat the contract as discharged and bring an action to recover a reasonable sum for the work they have actually performed. This prevents the defaulting party from being unjustly enriched by the partial performance of the innocent party. The case remains a foundational principle in English contract law regarding remedies for repudiatory breach.

Verdict: The verdict for the plaintiff was upheld, and the defendants’ application for a new trial was refused. The plaintiff was awarded £50.

Source: Planche v Colburn & Anor [1831] EWHC KB J56 (14 June 1831)