Ch 13-3 Case

Facts:

DCB construction Co & a lessee of CCD entered into an agreement for DCB to do work on a property. The lesee was given concent by development co and the contract signed. DCB began work but then stopped work due to lack of payment. DCB sued CCD for payments due from the Lessee= $333,119 total judgement.

Issue:

Whether CCD was unjustly enriched by DCB based upon an implied in law contract.

Rationale:

Recover a claim to unjust enrichment one must establish the following 3 things:

1. Benefit was conferred upon defendant

2. Defendant appreciated the benefit

3. Benefit was accepted by defendant under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for it to be retained without payment of its value

Court found that there was no allegation or proof that such performance resulted from some mistake or from fraud, duress, or other improper conduct by development co.

Conclusion:

Judgment in favor of DCB reversed because the unjust enrichment cannot stand. "As a matter of law, support the that such benefit was bestowed or retained unjustly. Hence, the judgment based conclusion on unjust enrichment cannot stand."

Group Consensus:

We think that the owner of the building shouldn't have to pay for the construction done by DCB. Therefore, we agree with the judgement because CCD gave DCB a written notice saying that they would not be held liable for any costs associated with the work that DCB would be performing.

Our only concern with the written notice is if it was agreed upon prior to the work being done by the two parties, which would make it a true part of the contract.

Group Members:

Connor Witt

John McSorley

Adam Campbell

Kevin Fanelli

Michael Byrne

Kevin Darcy