A business undertaking by Henry Meier and Nicholi Miller failed at the end of a week’s operation. Each blames the other for the failure. Both appeal from the outcome in the court below, each presenting a single question.

1. Plaintiff’s appeal: Plaintiff contends that in addition to the amount of the judgment in his favor, there should be added the sum of $750, which was borrowed from the National Frosted Foods, Inc., marketing agent, and for the repayment of which the plaintiff rendered himself personally liable. The factual finding is that the loan of $750 was made to the corporate defendant and plaintiff has sustained no loss thereby. Moreover, the record permits the inference that this borrowed money was used in re-establishing the business and was taken into account in *245 arriving at the amount of plaintiff’s recovery. No error has been made to appear in respect of this item.

2. Defendants’ appeal: The defendants seek to present the question whether plaintiff, who sues for breach of contract, may recover as upon quantum meruit. The record hardly presents the question as stated. It is found that by reason of Miller’s breach of the contract and interference with the operation of the business, plaintiff has lost his money and services and that the defendants have thereby obtained a reconditioned plant. In ascertaining the value of plaintiff’s services, quantum meruit was used as the measuring stick. Where plaintiff loses both money and services as a result of defendant’s wrongful conduct in breaching his contract, the damages recoverable are such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made. This would include the money lost and a fair value of the services rendered. Troitino v. Goodman, 225 N. C., 406, 35 S. E. (2d), 277.

On both appeals, No error.