Also known as: unjustly enriched · unjust enrichment claim
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A principle requiring restitution to prevent retention of a benefit conferred by another without compensation in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. The principle applies when a benefit is obtained not as a gift and not legally justifiable. Courts award restoration of a specific thing or a sum of money to eliminate the enrichment.
Umeko Uchida delivered specialized machinery to Urban Logistics under a preliminary agreement that later collapsed. Urban Logistics retained and used the equipment for six months. A court orders return of the machinery itself to eliminate the benefit Urban Logistics obtained without payment.
Uriel Urban paid a full judgment to an injured plaintiff after both he and Uma Upadhyay were found liable for the same accident. Uma Upadhyay received the discharge of her share without contributing. Uriel Urban recovers indemnity from Uma Upadhyay to prevent her retention of that benefit.
Uriah Urban held a house in tenancy by the entirety with his spouse. He executed a will attempting to leave the house to a third party while divorce proceedings were pending. Upon his death the surviving spouse takes title by operation of law. Equity refuses a constructive trust because no unjust enrichment occurred.
Uma Underwood performed extensive network repairs for Upland Industries after the company’s tower failed. No contract formed, yet the company gained reliable service and avoided customer losses. The court awards a sum measured by the reasonable value of the work to prevent the company’s retention of that benefit.
Urban Utley repaired a neighbor’s equipment without any expectation of payment. The neighbor later signed a writing promising substantial compensation. Because the initial work was conferred as a gift, the neighbor was not unjustly enriched and the promise is not binding.
Ulysses Maritime staged a live human-cannonball act at a fair. A television station broadcast the entire performance without consent. The performer recovers the value of the exclusive publicity right because the station obtained that benefit without payment.
Hugo Zacchini performs a "human cannonball" act in which he is shot from a cannon into a net some 200 feet away, with each performance occupying some 15 seconds. In August and September 1972, Zacchini was engaged to perform his act on a regular basis at the Geauga County Fair in Burton, Ohio. He performed in a fenced area, surrounded by grandstands, at the fair grounds, and members of the public attending the fair were not charged a separate admission fee to observe his act. On August 30, a freelance reporter for Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the operator of a television broadcasting station, attended the fair carrying a small movie camera. Zacchini noticed the reporter and asked him not to film the performance, and the reporter did not do so on that day. On the instructions of the producer of the station's daily newscast, the reporter returned the following day and videotaped the entire act. This film clip, approximately 15 seconds in length, was shown on the 11 o'clock news program that night, together with favorable commentary. Zacchini then brought this action for damages against Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. He alleged that the station showed and commercialized the film of his act without his consent. Such conduct was an unlawful appropriation of his professional property. The trial court granted summary judgment for the broadcaster. The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed. The Supreme Court of Ohio gave judgment for the broadcaster. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The plaintiff must show that the defendant received a benefit, that retention of the benefit would be unjust, and that the circumstances call for restitution rather than a gift or other justification. Courts measure recovery by the value of the benefit received, not necessarily by the plaintiff’s loss.
Supporting sources
…it is unclear whether Ecuadorean tribunal will hear the case, and there is no generally codified Ecuadorean legal remedy for the unjust enrichment and tort claims asserted). : In Koster , we stated that “[i]n any balancing of conveniences, a real showing of convenience by a plaintiff who has sued in his home forum will…
…App. 1977), which had "awarded interest on suspended royalties" based on "the terms of the royalty agreement . . . rather than unjust enrichment." 222 Kan., at 561, 567 P. 2d, at 1317. Significantly, when the Texas Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the Stahl judgment, it relied on the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Shutts…
…from charging an admission fee. "The rationale for [protecting the right of publicity] is the straightforward one of preventing unjust enrichment by the theft of good will. No social purpose is served by having the defendant get free some aspect of the plaintiff that would have market value and for which he would normally pay."…
…of shareholders. Because of this, descriptions of the duty to disclose are often coupled with statements that the duty prevents unjust enrichment. See, e. g. , In re Cady, Roberts & Co. , 40 S. E. C., at 912, n. 15; Langevoort, 70 Calif. L. Rev., at 19. Private gain is certainly a strong motivation for breaching the duty. It is,…
No. Liability arises from the receipt of a benefit whose retention without payment would result in unjust enrichment even when no promise was made. The duty is imposed by law to prevent inequitable gain.
Supporting sources
Restitution takes the form of returning the specific thing when that remedy is available and would prevent unjust enrichment, as when identifiable property remains in the defendant’s possession. Monetary awards are used when specific restoration is impractical.
Supporting sources
When one tortfeasor discharges the common liability, indemnity is available if the other would be unjustly enriched by the discharge. The paying party recovers from the non-paying party to the extent the latter’s share was satisfied without contribution.
Supporting sources
A benefit conferred as a gift or without expectation of compensation does not create unjust enrichment. The recipient has no duty to pay because the transfer was not unjust.
Supporting sources