18 June 2015
Stated simply, `Unjust enrichment' means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. `Unjust enrichment' occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in justice, equity and good conscience, belong to someone else. The doctrine of `unjust enrichment', therefore, is that no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine of `unjust enrichment' arises where retention of a benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity. The juristic basis of the obligation is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely, quasi-contract or the doctrine of restitution.
Unjust enrichment can be best explained through an example. Here is an incident that reflects one of the most common types of unjust enrichment suits. A homeowner agrees to pay a contractor to install a heating system throughout the house. While the contractor is installing the heating system, he notices a gas leak caused by a broken pipe. The contractor bills the homeowner for the time he spent and the materials he used making the repair. The home owner argues that he did not ask the contractor to repair the broken pipe, and refuses to pay the contractor for the service. The home owner has profited from the labor of the contractor, and the contractor has received nothing for his time and effort. At this point, the contractor can take the homeowner to court for unjust enrichment.
CAclubindia
