A subcontractor who has performed work under a valid subcontract with a principal contractor cannot maintain a quantum meruit claim against the building owner merely because the principal contractor has become insolvent. Unjust enrichment remains a unifying concept rather than a standalone cause of action, and recovery requires a qualifying or vitiating factor. The mere relationship of building owner, principal contractor and subcontractor is insufficient to establish the proximity required for a duty of care in respect of pure economic loss. However, the role of superintendent may arguably give rise to sufficient proximity, though this remains an open question requiring proper pleading of the particular relationship and its ingredients.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.