The Subjective Value Of Services Rendered

How does one put a value on services rendered that have unjustly enriched another party? The UK Supreme Court wrestles with the issue in Benedetti v Sawiris, [2013] UKSC 50, with Lord Neuberger noting the equation of price with value has 'echoes of Oscar Wilde's cynic'. The dispute arose from brokerage services performed by Benedetti in connection with the takeover of Wind, a telecommunications company. Benedetti claimed that he was owed €87 million for the services (nice work if you can get it) but was paid only €67 million (Sawiris and other parties in the acquisition group apparently having had concerns that Benedetti would misappropriate funds destined for others). Benedetti brought numerous claims against Sawiris and other parties, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unconscionable receipt, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

All but the last failed at trial, where Benedetti was awarded the €75 million that Sawiris et al. had offered at one point. The Court of Appeal disagreed: not all of the defendants had been unjustly enriched, and the liability of the remaining two to Benedetti was only €14.5 million, based on the conclusion that Benedetti had been paid for 60% of the services rendered. Benedetti appealed, holding out for either the original €87 million or the €75 million that had been on the table. Sawiris countered that Benedetti was entitled to nothing, as he had been paid in full for his efforts. Benedetti's appeal failed in the UKSC, while the cross-appeal of Sawiris was successful.

In the UKSC, there was agreement as to the result but not on how to get there. Lord Clarke, giving the leading judgment, held that the value of the benefit unjustly received by a...