In the previous installment of this two part series, we discussed the concept of unjust enrichment and under what circumstances it can be raised. Unjust enrichment is not available where an express contract exists.
In Premer, the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed how to properly state a claim for unjust enrichment. In order to state a claim for unjust enrichment the party making the claim must make two showings: First, the claiming party must show that the other party received some benefit; Second, there must be an inequity. In showing that a benefit was conferred, the Premer Court considered a number of factors, but reaffirmed that the key factor in these cases is that unjust enrichment must be determined by the benefit conferred on the defendant, such as the increase in value provided by the work.
For example, in Premer, the plaintiffs sued under a theory of unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs argued that they should be compensated based on value of the services they provided in improving the land. The court rejected this argument and stated that unjust enrichment is determined based on the value added to the land based on the work completed. Additionally the court noted that additions in value to the land needed to be offset by the costs incurred by the defendant in foreclosing on the land. As a result, the plaintiff’s claims for unjust enrichment failed.
Despite the often-complicated world of contract law, it is important to remember that this area seeks to reach fair and equitable results. As a result, contract law often provides remedies where those unfamiliar with the topic might not realize. Unjust enrichment is one these doctrines that seeks to reach fair results.
