clr/1961/1961_1_300.pdf

1961 Nov. 21 POLYXENI DEMOU KYRIACOU V. T H E ESTATE O F T H E LATE KATINA PETROU [O' BRIAIN, P., ZEKIA, VASSILIADES and JOSEPHIDES, JJ.] POLYXENI DEMOU KYRIACOU, Appellant (Plahdiff), v. THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KATINA PETPvOU, Λ Respondents (Defendants). {CivilAppeal No. 4340). Contract—Quasi contract—Servicesrenderedwhere the person who renderedthem did not intend to do sogratuitously—Compensa­ tion—The ContractLaw, Cap. 149,section 70—Qvantum meruit. The appellant rendered services gratis, but expected to be benefited for such services in future. Section 70 of theCon­ tract Law, Cap. 149 provides: "Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratui­ tously and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so doneor delivered". Held: In a claim based on a quantum meruit the intention of the recipient of services is not material but what is material is whether the person who does the services intendsto render them gratuitously or not. Since the appellant expected to be benefited from such services in future, it is sufficient to bring the appellant's case within section 70 of the contract Law Cap. 149. Appeal allowed. Case remitted to thetrialcourt tobedealt withaccordingly. Appeal. Appeal against the judgment of the District Court of Famagusta (Attalides P.D.C. and Kourris D.J.), dated the 31.3.61 (Action N o . 623/60) dismissing plaintiff's claim for £800 as damages or otherwise for services rendered and work done and food and materials supplied at the request of the defendant (deceased). A. Ch. Pouyouros for the appellant N. Antoniou for the respondent. 300 Thejudgment of the Court was read by: ZEKIA, J.: The appellant-plaintiff in this case bases her claim for services rendered and provisions supplied to the deceased on two alternative grounds; (

1. a)On express or implied agreement between herself and the deceased who agreed to pay her for her services and other expenses incurred by her. (
2. b)On a quantum meruit, ι The trial court found that the appellant failed to corro­ borate her evidence, as required by section 7 of the Evidence Law, Cap.9,thattherewas an agreement'between herself and the deceased and that the latter was to pay the former for the services rendered and provisions supplied. On the other hand, thetrial court found that she, the appellant, rendered services to the deceased gratis but expected to be benefited for such services in the future. In a claim based on quantum meruit the intention of the recipient of services is not material but what is material is whether the person who does the services intends to render them gratuitously or not. The Court clearly found that theappellant expected to be benefited from such services in future and, in our view, that is sufficient to bring the appellant's case within section 70 of the Contract Law which reads: "Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered". Γη the circumstances we remit the case to the trial court for the purpose of (
3. a)ascertaining the extent of the services rendered to the deceased and (
4. b)awarding the appropriate amount of compensation in respect of such services. The parties to be at liberty to adducefurther evidence, if they wish, on the points remitted. Appeal allowed in the above terms. Costs of appeal to be paid out of the estate. Appeal allowedin the above terms. 301 1961 Nov. 21 ' POLYXENI DEMOU KYRIACOU V. T H E ESTATE OF THE LATE KATINA PETROU