Key Takeaways

  • Unjust Enrichment occurs when one party unfairly benefits at another's expense without compensation.
  • Defenses to Unjust Enrichment include the doctrine of unclean hands, fraud, lack of intent, and contractual relationships.
  • Additional Defenses include change of position, estoppel, and the voluntary conferral of benefits.
  • Elements of Proof involve showing that a defendant was enriched, at the plaintiff's expense, and that retention of the benefit was unjust.
  • Contractual Limitations can override unjust enrichment claims if a formal agreement governs the transaction.
  • Quantum Meruit and Restitution allow for recovery even when no formal contract exists.
  • Legal Assistance is recommended for navigating complex unjust enrichment cases.

An unjust enrichment defense involves a legal case brought by a defendant to prove that a plaintiff benefited unfairly from goods or services and didn't pay.

What is Unjust Enrichment?

Also known as an implied contract by law or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment defenses arise when one party benefits unfairly from the efforts of the other without offering compensation. This might occur when one party provides goods or services while expecting to be paid only to find that the other party refuses to do so. It typically occurs when there is no contract between the two parties or a breach of contract occurs. 

Most laws state that those parties that benefit from unjust enrichment must pay restitution to the other party. If the enriched party refuses to pay restitution, the other party can file a civil suit to receive payment.

Defenses in Unjust Enrichment

On occasion, there are instances that prevent one party from receiving restitution for unjust enrichment.

  • Doctrine of Unclean Hands:The defense argues that the plaintiff should not receive an equitable remedy due to the plaintiff acting unethically or in bad faith.
  • Fraud: Victims of a Ponzi scheme sometimes profit, but the original profits come from other victims.
  • Minors: Underage defendants who received a payment on accident and spent some might not be made liable for the full amount, even if they knew about the mistake.

When the case goes to court, the defendant can either deny part of the plaintiff's claim or add new elements in a defense. If the latter occurs, the defendant would deny anything argued by the plaintiff. 

This argument doesn't address the burden of proof between the two parties. Instead, it allows for substantive arguments. Analyzing the difference between denials and defenses allows for a better understanding of finding common ground in an unjust enrichment case.

For instance, say a plaintiff owes a certain amount of money to the defendant and doesn't intend to pay the defendant back. Instead, the plaintiff unintentionally transfers the owed sum to the defendant. In this case, the defendant usually can retain the benefit, even though the plaintiff made the mistake.

While the primary defenses to unjust enrichment include the doctrine of unclean hands, fraud, and lack of intent, several additional legal principles may serve as defenses in a claim of unjust enrichment.

  1. Change of Position
    • A defendant may claim that they have already changed their financial position based on the benefit received, making it unjust to require restitution.
    • Example: If an individual unknowingly receives a mistaken payment and spends it in good faith, courts may not require repayment.
  2. Voluntary Conferral of Benefits
    • If a plaintiff voluntarily provided a service or benefit without any expectation of payment, a claim of unjust enrichment may fail.
    • This often applies in family arrangements or informal agreements.
  3. Estoppel
    • If a plaintiff’s conduct led the defendant to reasonably believe they were entitled to keep the benefit, the plaintiff may be barred from claiming restitution.
    • Example: A landlord provides renovations to a tenant's space expecting repayment but previously assured the tenant it was a gift.
  4. Legal and Contractual Justifications
    • If a contract governs the transaction, the terms of the contract generally take precedence over a claim of unjust enrichment.
    • Courts may also consider if the benefit was obtained through legal authority or public policy considerations.

How is Unjust Enrichment Proved?

Each state might have different definitions pertaining to unjust enrichment. Most of the time, a court considers the following questions:

  • Did the defendant receive an enrichment due to the plaintiff's activity?
  • Did the defendant receive an enrichment at the plaintiff's expense?
  • Was the enrichment unjust or unfair?
  • Can the defendant have access to any defense?
  • Are there specific remedies available for the plaintiff?

If the defendant received a benefit at the plaintiff's expense, most court cases deem that the enrichment was unjust. However, if the plaintiff received a benefit, then the enrichment might not be unjust. In addition, certain jurisdictions make sure the defendant knows that he or she is receiving an unjust enrichment. 

Unjust enrichment cases are difficult to prove, since they involve several special situations. Typically, courts deal with them on a case-by-case basis. If you have questions, consult with a lawyer.

Challenges in Proving Unjust Enrichment Claims

While proving unjust enrichment generally requires establishing that a benefit was unfairly retained, certain legal complexities can make these cases difficult.

  • Lack of Formal Agreement: Without a contract, claimants must rely on circumstantial evidence, which can be subjective.
  • Difficulty in Measuring Benefit Value: Courts must determine a reasonable value for restitution, which can vary based on jurisdiction.
  • Defendant’s Lack of Knowledge: If the defendant was unaware they received an unjust benefit, the claim may be harder to prove.
  • Public Policy Considerations: Courts may deny claims if restitution would result in an inequitable outcome for third parties.

Legal counsel can be crucial in navigating these complexities and ensuring a strong case.

Recovering When You Don't Have a Contract

If you did not sign a contract and felt like you were treated unfairly in a business deal, you might be able to apply quantum meriut or unjust enrichment to obtain restitution. However, some courts do not allow you to claim unjust enrichment in these instances, even if there are other claims available. 

If you have a quasi-contract, this typically requires one party to prove that the plaintiff gives a service or product to the other defendant and the defendant received a benefit from it. In addition, both parties believed that defendant would pay for the service or product.

The Role of Quantum Meruit in Unjust Enrichment Cases

When a contract is absent, claimants can seek compensation under quantum meruit, meaning "as much as deserved." This allows for restitution based on the reasonable value of the services or goods provided.

Key Factors in Quantum Meruit Claims:

  • The defendant knowingly accepted the benefit.
  • The plaintiff expected compensation.
  • The services or goods were not provided as a gift.

Quantum meruit claims are frequently used in business disputes, construction agreements, and cases where one party provides labor without formal documentation.

Gaining Restitution without Dealing with Unjust Enrichment

On occasion, the court fails to provide an unjust enrichment remedy, which isn't always a bad outcome. Certain provisions can offer a reprieve in situations if a business deal doesn't happen. If this occurs, the recovery can only be restitution. 

Damages that occur under unjust enrichment are oftentimes less than those that would accrue if there's a breach of contract. Pertaining to restitution damages, the amount is based upon the amount given to the other party and not the amount received from the benefit.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is the most common defense to an unjust enrichment claim?
    The doctrine of unclean hands is a frequent defense, arguing that the plaintiff engaged in unethical behavior, negating their right to restitution.
  2. Can a defendant argue that they didn’t know they were being enriched?
    Yes, lack of knowledge can serve as a defense if the defendant was unaware of receiving a benefit and did not act unjustly in retaining it.
  3. Is unjust enrichment only applicable when there is no contract?
    Typically, yes. If a contract exists, its terms will usually override an unjust enrichment claim. However, claims may arise if the contract is deemed invalid.
  4. What role does good faith play in unjust enrichment cases?
    A defendant acting in good faith—such as spending money received by mistake—may argue change of position as a defense.
  5. How can I determine if I have a valid unjust enrichment claim?
    Assess whether you conferred a benefit, the defendant retained it unjustly, and no valid contractual obligation explains the transaction. Consulting a lawyer can clarify your legal standing.

 UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.