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

Case Citations [1] (Spring 2024)

handle is hein.ali/retrdrue1207 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2024 Citations RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 3D Generally C.A.10, 2023. Cit. in sup. Lessee sued landlord, seeking, among other things, restitution for overpayments that lessee made to landlord due to lessee's mistake in failing to deduct construction costs from rent payments in accordance with the terms of the parties' lease agreement. The district court granted landlord's motion for summary judgment. This court reversed, holding that, under Wyoming law and the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, the Wyoming Supreme Court would likely permit restitution for rent overpayments mistakenly made by lessee. Safeway Stores 46 Inc. v. WY Plaza LC, 65 F.4th 474, 483, 484. D.Or.2022. Cit. generally in sup. Technology-support provider sued former work partner, alleging, among other things, that defendant was unjustly enriched when it breached an oral agreement to pay provider half of the commissions it received from a third party for sales made through a computer platform developed by provider. This court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff could not recover from defendant in quantum meruit under Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, because defendant had compensated plaintiff for its services in accordance with their written agreement. The court explained that it relied on the Restatement Third of Restitution by utilizing a case-by-case analysis when considering whether unjust enrichment allegations fell within an established category under Oregon law. BenefitElect, Inc. v. Strategic Benefit Solutions Corporation, 614 F.Supp.3d 838, 845. Ind.App.2023. Cit. generally in law rev. article quot. in sup. Contractor that agreed to build the shell of a home for developer brought a claim for quantum-meruit damages against developer, after developer refused to pay for changes requested during construction that required additional labor and materials. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for plaintiff. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that the trial court did not err in calculating plaintiff's damages based on the value of plaintiff's additional services and expenditures for construction materials. The court cited Restatement of Restitution § 1 and the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in distinguishing the theory of quantum meruit from the theory of unjust enrichment, and explained that, here, construing plaintiff's claim as a claim for quantum meruit was appropriate, because it arose from an implied COPYRIGHT (2024 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