PEMBROKE STEEL Co. v. Technical Sales Assocs., 227 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). · Go Syfert
Search
PEMBROKE STEEL Co. v. Technical Sales Assocs., 227 S.E.2d 491 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases · …where quantum meruit is involved, the word value means value to the owner, rather than the cost of producing the work to the workmen.
37 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Iraola & Cia, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation (ca11, 2003-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Iraola & Cia, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation (2×)
11th Cir. · 2003 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
where quantum meruit is involved, the word value means value to the owner, rather than the cost of producing the work to the workmen.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) IRAOLA & CIA, S.A. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (2×)
11th Cir. · 2003 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
where quantum meruit is involved, the word value means value to the owner, rather than the cost of producing the work to the workmen.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Razavi v. Shackelford
Ga. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Corp., 226 Ga. App. 459 (1) ( 486 SE2d 684 ) (1997). 2 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Bagwell-Hughes, Inc. v. McConnell, 224 Ga. 659, 661-662 ( 164 SE2d 229 ) (1968). 3 Id. 4 252 Ga. App. 598 ( 557 SE2d 32 ) (2001). 5 Id. at 599 . 6 Id. at 601 . 7 (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 601-602 (1) (a). 8 228 Ga. App. 763 ( 492 SE2d 742 ) (1997). 9 Id. at 764 (1). 10 See also Cherokee Falls Investments v. Smith, 213 Ga. App. 603, 605 (1) ( 445 SE2d 572 ) (1994) (alleged land development contract unenforceable where it did not contain terms of how or when the development was to occur,…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hollifield v. Monte Vista Biblical Gardens, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Assoc., 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 (2) ( 227 SE2d 491 ) (1976); Creative Svc. v. Spears Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matthews v. Neal, Greene & Clark (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
“Value of services rendered in essence is exclusively a matter for jury determination.” Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Assoc., 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 (3) ( 227 SE2d 491 ) (1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stolz v. Kopp
Ga. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
Code Ann. § 3-107 provides in part: “Ordinarily, when one renders services or transfers property valuable to another, which the latter accepts, a promise is implied to pay the reasonable value thereof. . .” (Emphasis supplied.) “Where quantum meruit is involved the word value means value to the owner rather than the cost of producing the work'to the workmen.” Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Assoc., 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 ( 227 SE2d 491 ) (1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McRae v. Britton
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
"Value of services rendered in essence is exclusively a matter for jury determination. [Cits.]” Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Associates, 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 (3) (227 SE2d491) (1976).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Fox
Ga. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
"Value of services rendered in essence is exclusively a matter for jury determination. [Cits.]” Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Assoc., 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 (3) ( 227 SE2d 491 ) (1976).
discussed Cited "see" Sosebee v. McCrimmon (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: accord · confidence high
Generally, “[t]he question of reasonable value of services rendered is for the determination of the jury where there has been no admission or agreement by the opposite party that the amount sued for is reasonable.” Dorsey v. Edge, 75 Ga. App. 388, 393 (2) ( 43 SE2d 425 ); accord Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Assoc., 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 (2), (3) ( 227 SE2d 491 ) (jury question remained whether owner, in fact, benefited from the work and, if so, to what extent).
discussed Cited "see" Smith Development, Inc. v. Flood (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: accord · confidence high
Co., 130 Ga. App. 145 (3) ( 202 SE2d 581 ); accord Pembroke Steel Co. v. Technical Sales Assoc., 138 Ga. App. 744, 745 (2) ( 227 SE2d 491 ). “[T]he law will not imply a promise to pay for services contrary to the intention of the parties.
Pembroke Steel Company
v.
Technical Sales Associates
52124.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
May 21, 1976.
227 S.E.2d 491
Kenneth S. McBurnett, for appellant., Hunter, Houlihan, Maclean, Exley, Dunn & Connerat, Charles A. Edwards, for appellee.
McMurray, Pannell, Marshall.
Cited by 17 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 67%
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (4)
McMurray, Judge.

This case involves alleged earned commissions by a manufacturers’ representative in the procurement of purchase orders for structural steel components and other items manufactured. Technical Sales Associates, acting as a manufacturers’ sales representative, súed Pembroke Steel Co. for breach of contract, a claim for quantum meruit and tortious breach of a confidential relationship. After extensive discovery, plaintiff moved for summary judgment, and the lower court granted the motion awarding plaintiff the sum of $9,752.07. Defendant appeals. Held:

1. The alleged agreement in this instance was verbal and an issue of fact exists as to the exact agreement by and between the parties. However, the court held that in this instance the mere existence of the agreement[*745] was not essential to recovery due to the suit for quantum meruit since the law creates an obligation to pay when one performs services for another which are accepted. See Code § 3-107 which creates an implication (presumption) that there was an obligation on the part of the defendant to pay the reasonable value of the services rendered.

Argued May 4, 1976 Decided May 21, 1976. Kenneth S. McBurnett, for appellant. Hunter, Houlihan, Maclean, Exley, Dunn & [*746] Connerat, Charles A. Edwards, for appellee.

[*745] 2. However, a recovery on quantum meruit may not be obtained where the services are rendered with no anticipation that compensation is to be received. See Addison v. Southern R. Co., 108 Ga. App. 314 (132 SE2d 833). Where quantum meruit is involved the word value means value to the owner rather than the cost of producing the work to the workmen. A jury question thus remains as to whether the owner has in fact been benefited by the work and if so to what extent. See Brumby v. Smith & Plaster Co. of Ga., 123 Ga. App. 443 (1) (181 SE2d 303).

3. Value of services rendered in essence is exclusively a matter for jury determination. Hoard v. Wiley, 113 Ga. App. 328, 331 (147 SE2d 782); Williams v. Claussen-Lawrence Const. Co., 120 Ga. App. 190, 192 (169 SE2d 692).

4. While there was evidence here that generally in the trade (manufacturers’ representatives) a five percent commission is paid, a jury might consider the question of value (which is a matter of opinion) and reach an entirely different verdict from consideration of the same evidence by experts. It was therefore error to grant summary judgment as to the value of services rendered in this instance to the defendant. See Ginn v. Morgan, 225 Ga. 192 (2) (167 SE2d 393); Marshall v. Bahnsen, 1 Ga. App. 485 (1) (57 SE 1006); Harrison v. Tuggle, 225 Ga. 211 (2) (167 SE2d 395).

Judgment reversed.

Pannell, P. J., and Marshall, J., concur.