Quote:
Originally Posted by Triode
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
|
Firstly, unjust enrichment is, in fact, in some jurisdictions, a cause of action.
Secondly, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit are often confused by both law students and lawyers alike. They are not the same, as you correctly point out.
In either case, the essential doctrine remains: at the end of the day, you can't receive a benefit without expecting to pay something for it. There is a clear breach of contract here that resulted in the transfer of property from one part to the other. That property, in this case, cannot be returned and needs a remedy which provides some compensation from the party that received the benefit. That the relationship has soured and the contract has been broken would not change this doctrine.