It is clear from a reading of Sumpter v Hedges that there had not been a voluntary acceptance of partial performance. For this to have occurred, the innocent party must have had the option to take or not to take the benefit of the work done. In Sumpter v Hedges, because the work had been done on the innocent party's land, the court felt that the innocent party had no choice but to complete the work. He was in possession of what he could not fail to keep. If the court had found otherwise, however, the builder would have been entitled to a quantum meruit to compensate him for the value of the work done. In the event, he was entitled to compensation for the value of the materials that he had left on site that had not been incorporated into the building and which the innocent party used to complete the work. This was because the innocent party had the choice as to whether or not to use these as they could have been returned.