Unjust Enrichment: Legal Rights and Equitable Recovery

In the American legal system, unjust enrichment is a primary cause of action used to resolve private disputes where no formal contract governs the relationship. You can sue for unjust enrichment as a standalone civil claim or as an alternative to a breach of contract claim. The doctrine is founded on the principle of equity and good conscience. It prevents a recipient from enjoying a windfall that they did not earn or pay for. If you have provided value, such as money, services, or property, and the other party has kept that value without compensation, early legal intervention is critical to securing a return of those assets.

Understanding how this doctrine applies in the real world is essential for identifying your own path to recovery. Common scenarios handled in commercial litigation include:Mistaken Wire Transfers: An individual or business accidentally sends funds to the wrong bank account, and the recipient refuses to return the money.Unpaid Contractor Work: A builder performs additional work on a property at the owner's request, but because there was no written change order, the owner refuses to pay.Unauthorized Intellectual Property Use: A company uses a consultant's proprietary data or strategy after negotiations fail, gaining a market advantage without a licensing agreement.Overpayment After a Voided Agreement: A party makes payments under a contract that is later found to be legally void or unenforceable.

To succeed in a lawsuit, a plaintiff must satisfy a specific evidentiary burden. SJKP LLP performs a forensic audit of the facts to establish these three clinical pillars:Benefit Conferred: You must prove that you provided a tangible or intangible benefit to the defendant. This includes cash payments, professional services, or the improvement of the defendant’s property.Knowledge and Acceptance: The defendant must have been aware of the benefit and chose to accept or retain it. The law rarely rewards a plaintiff for a benefit forced upon an unwilling recipient.Inequitable Retention: You must demonstrate that under the circumstances, it is unfair for the defendant to keep the benefit without paying for its fair market value.

The distinction between a contract claim and an equitable restitution claim is a fundamental rail of civil litigation. FeatureBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentLegal BasisExpress or Implied AgreementEquitable Doctrine (Quasi-Contract)Primary FocusThe terms of the bargainThe fairness of the retentionRecovery GoalTo fulfill the expectation of the dealTo strip the defendant of the unearned gainStandardWhat was promised?What is fair? SJKP LLP often utilizes alternative pleading, asserting both theories in a single complaint. This ensures that if a court finds a contract is technically invalid, your right to recover based on unjust benefit retention remains active.

The primary remedy for unjust enrichment is restitution. This is a court ordered payment designed to return the value of the benefit unjustly retained. Restitution: The defendant is ordered to pay the fair market value of the services or assets received.Disgorgement: In complex commercial cases, the court may order the defendant to hand over all profits earned from the enrichment without legal basis. This is particularly common in fiduciary or Securities Law disputes. Restitution aims to return the value of the benefit unjustly retained, ensuring that the defendant does not profit from their own inequitable conduct.

While the core principles are consistent across the United States, specific applications vary by state. Some jurisdictions treat unjust enrichment as a completely independent cause of action, while others limit it to a remedy available only when other legal theories fail. Furthermore, the statute of limitations for these claims is often shorter than for written contracts. Waiting to file can result in the terminal loss of your rights. Additionally, courts will generally not allow an unjust enrichment claim if a valid, express contract covers the exact same subject matter, as the law prefers to hold parties to their chosen agreements.

Unjust enrichment is defined by the evidence of what is fair, not just the absence of a contract. SJKP LLP provides the tactical advocacy required to manage high stakes restitution disputes. We move beyond the initial financial loss to perform an exhaustive audit of the benefit’s value and the defendant’s conduct. We do not rely on standard industry boilerplate. Instead, we execute an operationally enforceable strategy to identify the specific vulnerabilities in the defendant’s position. From managing complex Commercial Contracts to securing your rights in cases of unjust benefit retention, SJKP LLP stands as the definitive legal framework for your protection.