«

If property or services given by the plaintiff to a defendant could be restored in specie as in the case of land, or had necessarily always the same value to both parties to the transaction as in the case of money, the only problem in measuring the extent of a plaintiff's claim for restitution, when once it had been admitted that he had a valid claim, would be concerned with deductions because of (1) possible advantages received by the plaintiff from the part performance which had taken place, or (2) a possible right of recoupment on the part of the defendant for the plaintiff's failure completely to fulfil his contract. But when the plaintiff has given the defendant something other than land or money the necessity of putting a money value on his performance as a basis for judgment in his favor introduces two further problems; (1) Is the market value or the cost to the plaintiff of what he has rendered the criterion, or the benefit which the defendant has received ? and (2) If the parties had fixed by contract a value for full performance by the plaintiff, how far does this limit his right to recover on a quasi-contractual basis a different value for full performance or a different ratable value for partial performance?

Sec. 2002); Peterson v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 468, 460,49 N. W. 246,13 L. R. A. 72; Poeey v. Garth, 7 Mo. 04, 37 Am. Dec. 183; Tindner v. Gape Brewery, etc., Co., 131 Mo. App. 680, 111 S. W. 600 (cf. Anstee v. Ober, 26 Mo. App. 665; Paul v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 87 Mo. App. 647); Lane v. Phillips, 6 Jones L. 455 (cf. Pullen v. Green, 75 N. C. 215, 218).

48 Stubbe v. Slater, [1910] 1 Ch. 195; Wadsworth v. Adams, 138 U. S. 380, 34 L Ed. 964,11 Sup. Ct. 303; Shaeffer v. Blair, 149 U. 8. 248, 37 L. Ed. 721, 13 Sop. Ct. 856; Quirk v. Quirk, 155 Fed. 199; Doss v. Long Prairie Levee District, 96 Ark. 451, 132 S. W. 443; Jeffries v. Robbing, 66 Kan. 427, 71 Pac. 852; Little v. Phipps, 206 Mass. 331,94 N. E. 260, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046; Ranney v. Henry, 160 Mich. 597, 125 N. W. 603; Harrison v. Craven, 188 Mo. 590,87 8. W. 962; Witte v. Storm,

236 Mo. 470, 139 S. W. 384; Jansen v. Williams, 36 Neb. 869, 55 N. W. 279, 20 L. R. A. 207; Quinn v. Le Due (N. J. Eq.), 51 Atl. 199; Whaples v. FahyB, 87 N. Y. App. D. 518, 84 N. Y. S. 793; Lichtenstein v. Case, 99 N. Y. App. D. 570, 91 N. Y. S. 57; Abramson v. Dry Goods Refolding Co. (N. Y. Misc.), 166 N. Y. S. 771; Wilkinson v. McCullough, 196 Pa. 205, 46 Atl. 357, 79 Am. St. 702; Jackson v. Pleasanton, 101 Va. 282, 43 S. E. 573; Hutchinson v. Fleming, 40 Can. Supr. 134. And see supra, {1022, ad fin. But see Rathenberger v. Jacob, 167 Wis. 273, 167 N. W. 271.

49 Nitedals Taendstikfabrik v. Brus-ter, [1906] 2 Ch. 671. It may be questioned whether the plaintiff's recovery in Hippisley v. Knee, [1905] 1 K. B. 1, can be justified on the facts. See Little v. Phipps, 208 Mass. 331, 94 N E. 260, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1046.

*