Elements of Unjust Enrichment: What Must Be Proven to Recover Improper Gains

At its core, unjust enrichment is a "quasi-contract" theory. It is based on the principle that no one should be allowed to profit at another's expense in a way that offends good conscience. It is often invoked when a person provides services or goods, expecting payment, but no formal contract exists to enforce that expectation.

While both involve one party owing another, their "legal rails" are entirely different:

Breach of Contract: 

Arises from a specific, enforceable agreement. The remedy is "damages" to put the plaintiff where they would have been if the contract was followed.

Unjust Enrichment: 

Arises in the absence of contract. The remedy is restitution, focused on taking back the unjust gain from the defendant to

The first of the elements of unjust enrichment is the transfer of value. This benefit conferred can be tangible, such as money or property, or intangible, such as professional services, labor, or the release of a legal liability.

It is generally insufficient for a benefit to simply "land" on the defendant. The defendant must have known about the benefit or appreciated its value. For example, if you mistakenly paint a neighbor's house while they are on vacation, you may struggle to prove appreciation because they never had the chance to reject the service.

The final and most litigated element is the "unjust" nature of the retention. The court asks: Is it fair for the defendant to keep this for free? If the plaintiff performed the service as a gift or out of pure self-interest without a reasonable expectation of payment, the retention is not considered "unjust."

Unjust enrichment is the primary remedy when:

• An intended contract was never signed but work was performed.
• A contract is found to be "void" or unenforceable due to a technicality.
• A contract exists, but it does not cover the specific additional work performed ("extra-contractual" services).

Claims often arise from mistaken payments, overpayments, or when assets are transferred under duress or undue influence. SJKP LLP performs a forensic audit of the transfer to ensure the restitution claim accounts for the full scope of the unjust gain.

Courts are more likely to find unjust enrichment when the benefit was conferred directly from the plaintiff to the defendant. While some jurisdictions allow for "indirect" benefits, proving the connection becomes exponentially more difficult as more parties are added to the chain.

If an enforceable contract exists covering the same subject matter, you generally cannot sue for unjust enrichment. This is known as the "contract bars equity" rule. You must first determine if your claim should be for breach of contract instead.

You must be able to prove exactly what the defendant received and what it was worth. This requires gathering invoices, receipts, communications, and expert valuations to establish the "Quantum Meruit" (the reasonable value of services).

The primary remedy is restitution, which requires the defendant to pay back the value of the benefit conferred. In cases of egregious misconduct, the court may order "disgorgement," forcing the defendant to give up all profits made from the unjust act, even if those profits exceed the plaintiff's initial loss.

Unlike contract or tort claims, you generally cannot recover "lost profits" or "punitive damages" in an unjust enrichment case. The recovery is capped at the value of the benefit the defendant actually received.