Skip to main content

Unjust enrichment

The retention of a benefit conferred by another, that is not intended as a gift and is not legally justifiable, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. 

The elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment are:  the enrichment of the party accused of unjust enrichment; that such enrichment was at the expense of the party seeking restitution; and the circumstances were such that in equity and good conscience restitution should be made.  An additional requirement is that the party accused of unjust enrichment must know of the benefit conferred; to ensure that the benefit was not foisted on the recipient and is something for which compensation is reasonably expected.

Recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment typically occurs where there was no contract between the parties, or a contract turns out to be invalid.  See quasi-contract.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A legal principle that if a person receives money or other property unfairly and at the expense of another -- that is, by chance, mistake, or without any personal effort -- the recipient should return the property to the rightful owner. In lawsuits based on unjust enrichment, courts can order that the property be returned (referred to as making restitution).

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

August 19, 2010, 5:26 pm

 

"[A]pplying New York law, we may analyze quantum meruit and unjust enrichment together as a single quasi contract claim."

"[T]o recover in quantum meruit under New York law, a claimant must establish (1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of the services by the person to whom they are rendered, (3) an expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services."

"A claimant seeking relief under a theory of unjust enrichment in New York must demonstrate (1) that the defendant benefitted; (2) at the plaintiff's expense; and (3) that equity and good conscience require restitution.”

Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487, n.9, 509 (2d Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted).