Definition
Per agreement is a phrase used in pleading and billing contexts, typically appearing in a bill of particulars or statement of services rendered, to indicate that the claimed amount or obligation arises from or is governed by an agreement between the parties. When appended to an itemized claim for services, it signals that the plaintiff asserts a contractual basis for the stated sum rather than a quantum meruit or open-market valuation.
The phrase does not, however, operate as a limitation on recovery. Its inclusion in a bill of particulars does not foreclose a claimant from recovering the reasonable value of services even if no specific agreed price is ultimately proven at trial. The claim survives on an implied or quasi-contractual basis if the express agreement fails of proof.
---
Common Confusion
The phrase is sometimes mistaken for a binding admission that recovery depends entirely on proving the specific terms of a contract. It is not. Courts have treated "per agreement" in a bill of particulars as descriptive of the anticipated basis of recovery, not as a pleading concession that eliminates alternative theories of value. A party who pleads per agreement but fails to establish the agreed price may still recover on the underlying value of the services rendered.
This confusion matters most when a defendant moves to limit or defeat a claim by arguing that the plaintiff's own pleading forecloses quantum meruit recovery. The historical authority is clear that the phrase does not carry that effect.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encountering "per agreement" in historical pleading documents, bills of particulars, or early American case records should treat it as a contextual descriptor rather than a term of art with fixed legal consequences. The phrase appears most frequently in nineteenth-century New York practice, where bills of particulars were formal procedural instruments requiring itemization of claims.
The key navigational point: if you are researching the intersection of express contract pleading and implied-in-fact or quasi-contract recovery, "per agreement" is a signal phrase worth tracking in historical pleadings. It often surfaces in disputes over attorney fees, professional services, and labor claims where no written contract existed and the plaintiff was asserting whatever basis of recovery the evidence would support.
Do not expect modern case law to use this phrase with any frequency. Contemporary practice accomplishes the same descriptive function through contract pleading counts accompanied by alternative quantum meruit counts. The historical phrase has largely dissolved into standard pleading alternatives rather than surviving as a standalone term of art.
Corpus researchers working in pre-1900 New York materials should also note that bills of particulars from this period served a somewhat different procedural function than their modern counterparts, and the language within them, including phrases like "per agreement," was often informal and not intended to operate as a formal admission or waiver.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary provides the essential authority here: the addition of the words "per agreement" in a bill of particulars for services does not preclude recovery of the value of the services specified, even if no agreement for payment of a particular sum is proven. Bouvier cites to 45 N.Y. 810 for this proposition.
Bouvier's treatment is brief and entirely functional — it exists to correct a pleading misconception rather than to define a term of art. There is no developed doctrinal discussion, no etymology, and no broader treatment of the phrase in contract or pleading theory. This is consistent with Bouvier's general approach to short practice-oriented entries, which flag practical consequences for practitioners rather than theorize about the underlying doctrine.
No other shelf source in the Law Mind corpus addresses "per agreement" as a discrete entry. Researchers needing broader context should consult historical treatments of bills of particulars in New York procedure, implied contract doctrine, and quantum meruit recovery.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The Bouvier's authority derives from New York practice and the cited New York court decision. Whether other nineteenth-century jurisdictions treated the phrase identically is not well-documented in the available sources. Researchers working outside New York historical materials should not assume universal application without independent verification.
---