6 N.H. 481 (N.H. 1834)
Britton v. Turner is a landmark 19th-century contracts case that reshaped the common law's approach to "entire" contracts and the availability of restitution following breach.
May a party who breaches an entire employment contract by failing to complete performance recover, in quantum meruit, the reasonable value of services conferred and accepted by the other party, subject to deduction for damages caused by the breach?
Where one party, though in breach of an entire contract, has conferred and the other party has accepted and retained a measurable benefit, the breaching party may recover in restitution (quantum meruit) the reasonable value of that benefit, reduced by any damages the nonbreaching party proves were caused by the breach. The agreed contract price is evidence of value and operates as a practical ceiling on recovery so that the breaching party does not obtain more than the value contemplated by the contract.
Yes. A breaching employee who fails to complete an entire one-year contract may recover the reasonable value of the services actually received and retained by the employer, less the employer's damages attributable to the breach. The jury's award was affirmed.
Britton v. Turner is a foundational case for the doctrine that a breaching party may obtain restitution to the extent of benefits conferred, subject to the nonbreaching party's damages. It marks a shift from strict forfeiture under entire contracts to a more nuanced, equitable approach focused on unjust enrichment and net gains. Law students study Britton to understand the relationship between expectation damages (the traditional contract remedy) and restitution (focused on the defendant's enrichment), and to see how courts calibrate remedies to avoid windfalls while still respecting contractual allocation of risk. The case is routinely paired with Cutter v. Powell and modern Restatement provisions (notably § 374) to illustrate the development of American contract remedies, the limits of recovery by a willful breacher, and how courts measure and cap restitution by reference to the contract price and proven damages.