Lemoine Co. of Alabama v. HLH Constructors, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a subcontractor was not entitled to payment when the contractor had not been paid
• rejecting quantum meruit argument based on existence of a express contract and noting that a quantum meruit recovery would render one of the contract's provisions \meaningless\
• because \plain and unambiguous\ \pay-if-paid\ provision of contract had not been satisfied, general contractor had no obligation to make final payment to subcontractor
• “[W]hen an express contract exists, an argument based on a quantum meruit recovery in regard to an implied contract fails”.
• because \plain and unambiguous\ \pay-if-paid\ provision of contract had not been satisfied, general contractor had no obligation to make final payment to subcontractor
• because \plain and unambiguous\ \pay-if-paid\ provision of contract had not been satisfied, general contractor had no obligation to make final payment to subcontractor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).