Unjust Enrichment

"In the absence of a contractual agreement, a trial court may require an individual to make restitution for unjust enrichment if he has received a benefit which would be unconscionable to retain. Unjust enrichment may exist when an individual receives a benefit as a result of his wrongful acts, or when he innocently receives a benefit and passively accepts it. We have held that the trial court must determine whether the facts and equities of a particular case warrant a remedy in restitution. ... The correct measure of restitution for unjust enrichment is the value of the benefit received by the unjustly enriched party."

"A trial court may require an individual to make restitution for unjust enrichment if he has received a benefit which would be unconscionable for him to retain. To entitle one to restitution, it must be shown that there was unjust enrichment either through wrongful acts or passive acceptance of a benefit that would be unconscionable to retain."

"Restitution is an equitable remedy typically applied to contracts implied in law to disgorge the benefit of unjust enrichment. [T]o be entitled to restitution, there must not only be unjust enrichment, but also the person sought to be charged must have wrongfully secured a benefit, or passively received one which it would be unconscionable to retain."

"Unjust enrichment is not a boundless doctrine, but is, instead, narrower, more predictable, and more objectively determined than the implications of the words `unjust enrichment'. One general limitation is that unjust enrichment shall not supplant the terms of an agreement. It is a well-established principle that the court ordinarily cannot allow recovery under a theory of unjust enrichment where there is a valid, express contract covering the subject matter at hand."

"Restitution and quantum meruit recovery based upon "unjust enrichment are allowed by the courts as alternative remedies to an action for damages for breach of contract." ... "The party seeking restitution must establish not only unjust enrichment, but that the person sought to be charged had wrongfully secured a benefit or passively received one which it would be unconscionable to retain, and unjust enrichment generally does not form an independent basis for a cause of action." ... "While damages in unjust enrichment are measured by the value of what was inequitably retained, in quantum meruit, by contrast, the damages are based on the value of the services provided by the plaintiff.""