The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Sexual Quantum Meruit
This actually came up in a hypo, based on a real extortion case.
Say that paying for sex is legal, and a sexual transaction is made with the expectation of payment but no prearranged fee. Then there might be a lawsuit on a sexual quantum meruit theory, which might also be called (click "READ MORE" for a possible answer) …
quantum meretrix.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A link to the real case would be interesting.
There'll be one soon; right now, we're litigating the unsealing of portions of the record.
Note - in the Nevada case I cited, quantum merit is potentially available, but only for non-sexual matters, such as whether a cohabitant gains an interest in the property.
Thanks, but I don't see the Nevada citation; can you post it, please?
I still have a “your comment is awaiting moderation” on the original link. The case is Hay v.Hay, 678 P.2d 672 (1984).
Will remove link from prior post and see if it works.
Gist of prior post is that the Nevada courts ruled that criminal prostitution is statutory and separate from the common-law rule that a meretricious contract is unenforceable. Accordingly, the common-law rule survived the legislative repeal of the criminal statute.
By the way, they ruled the same way on gambling. Just because gambling can’t be prosecuted as a crime and is regulated doesn’t make a gambling agreement enforceable. The casino commission can take away the casino’s license, but that doesn’t mean the courts can award gambling winnings.
Meretricious relationship is another legal term for common law marriage.
I don't think that's right (or is there a joke I'm missing here?).
[…] from Law https://reason.com/2019/04/18/sexual-quantum-meruit/ […]
And then there is sex in exchange for, say, painting the fence or leaving the toilet seat down:
"Quantum marriedsex".
Misfortunately, I was facing my wife and drinking coffee when I read that and had to quickly defend both the ejaculation and it’s cause.