About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (April 2022 - August 2022)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue1205 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D PART I. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 1. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Idaho, 2021. Com. (b) quot. in sup. Tenants sued landlord, seeking specific performance of a purported oral agreement in which they would rent a house from landlord for five years before purchasing it; alternatively, tenants sought restitution for the value of improvements they made to the house. The trial court concluded after a bench trial that, while the oral agreement was unenforceable, tenants were entitled to restitution for certain improvements. Affirming in part, this court held that the evidence supported the trial court's determination that landlord would be unjustly enriched if he were to retain tenants' improvements without paying for their value. The court cited Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §§ 1, 2, and 31-36 in explaining that restitution for unjust enrichment was potentially available where, as here, a plaintiff conferred a benefit under a contract that was not enforceable. Asher v. McMillan, 503 P.3d 172, 178. § 2. Limiting Principles C.A.3, 2022. Subsec. (2) quot. in treatise quot. in ftn. Vendor that entered a ten-year contract to provide on-campus dining services at private university sued university, alleging that university breached the contract by failing to renegotiate in good faith after university's annual first-year student enrollment did not increase by two percent. The district court granted summary judgment for university on vendor's alternative claim for unjust enrichment if the duty to renegotiate in good faith was found to be unenforceable. Affirming, this court held that the promise to renegotiate in good faith was enforceable, and that the quasi-contractual remedy of unjust enrichment was therefore unavailable. The court explained that, under Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 2, a valid contract defined the obligations of the parties as to matters within its scope, displacing to that extent any inquiry into unjust enrichment. SodexoMAGIC, LLC v. Drexel University, 24 F.4th 183, 228. C.A.D.C.2022. Subsec. (2) and com. (c) quot. in sup. In consolidated actions, university students and their parents sued universities, alleging that defendants violated express or implied contractual commitments to plaintiffs during a pandemic when they transitioned to online educational activities and declined to refund any portion of plaintiffs' tuition payments and fees. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. This court reversed in part and remanded, holding that plaintiffs plausibly alleged, as an alternative to their claims for breach of contract, that they provided the benefit of tuition and fees to defendants under a contract that did not cover the issue in dispute, or that was invalid, subject to avoidance, or otherwise ineffective, such that they were potentially entitled to recover COPYRIGHT C2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most