Implied in Law/Implied in Fact Contracts Forum

[lawschoolftw]

Contracts test tomorrow. Need some help with non promissory restitution/ implied in fact v. implied in law contracts?

I'm a bit confused about the elements you need for unjust enrichment.

What I have is that to have a claim for unjust enrichment you must:
1. Benefit conferred on the defendant
2. Defendant knows about the benefit
3. Retention of the benefit would be unjust (usually meaning that the person conferring had an intent to charge)
Also I have that the person conferring the benefit cannot be acting officiously.

I have three questions
First, consent is not necessary correct? If you consent to the enrichment that is essentially an implied in fact contract and thus a regular enforceable contract under the law. Is this correct?

Second, what exactly is meant by defendant "knows" about the benefit. Does it mean he has to know about it while it is happening or can he simply find out about the benefit post enrichment?

Second, for whatever reason I'm having a hard time thinking about a situation where you would claim unjust enrichment (as opposed to promissory restitution post enrichment). If someone could give me a concrete example I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

Edit: Also, I should clarify that I'm looking for non-emergency situations as well.

[dailygrind]

it isn't "officious," it's "officious intermeddler," ie someone who comes in, fucks around in your affairs without your asking, and then asks for payment. like the guy at the red light who comes over to your car and cleans your windows with the dirtiest motherfucking rag you've ever seen and then looks at you for payment. that's an officious intermeddler.

consent => doesn't require explicit consent, but implicit consent by "last clear chance" to avoid the benefit conferred will be enough to invoke it.

let's say i come to your house, and start painting it when i'm contracted to paint your neighbor's. i'm dyslexic, it's a hard life. you stand there on your porch, coffee in hand, and note the excellent job i'm doing. you don't bother correcting me. when i ask you for payment, you refuse. this is an example where i will be able to claim unjust enrichment, because you had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident.

[MBZags]

it isn't "officious," it's "officious intermeddler," ie someone who comes in, fucks around in your affairs without your asking, and then asks for payment.

I enjoyed this definition.

[lawschoolftw]

Thanks Daily,

However, wouldn't that be a situation of an implied in fact contract. In essence I've consented to the person painting my house (even though officiously) and therefore we have an enforceable contract? Doesn't this differ from unjust enrichment?

[dailygrind]

Thanks Daily,

However, wouldn't that be a situation of an implied in fact contract. In essence I've consented to the person painting my house (even though officiously) and therefore we have an enforceable contract? Doesn't this differ from unjust enrichment?

no. implied in fact is something where our minds meet on the contract but we don't actually say anything explicit. you can just infer the existence of the contract from our actions. in the hypo i made, you never agreed to pay me. our minds passed like ships in the night.

[lawschoolftw]

Thanks Daily,

However, wouldn't that be a situation of an implied in fact contract. In essence I've consented to the person painting my house (even though officiously) and therefore we have an enforceable contract? Doesn't this differ from unjust enrichment?

no. implied in fact is something where our minds meet on the contract but we don't actually say anything explicit. you can just infer the existence of the contract from our actions. in the hypo i made, you never agreed to pay me. our minds passed like ships in the night.

Ok. So, for example, say the painter wasn't dyslexic. He just decides to start painting my house. He came along painted my house and I sat out on the front porch and watched, commented what a good job he was doing and drank my coffee. Would he not be able to recover because he was an officious intermeddler, even though I sat there and didn't stop him?

[dailygrind]

Thanks Daily,

However, wouldn't that be a situation of an implied in fact contract. In essence I've consented to the person painting my house (even though officiously) and therefore we have an enforceable contract? Doesn't this differ from unjust enrichment?

no. implied in fact is something where our minds meet on the contract but we don't actually say anything explicit. you can just infer the existence of the contract from our actions. in the hypo i made, you never agreed to pay me. our minds passed like ships in the night.

Ok. So, for example, say the painter wasn't dyslexic. He just decides to start painting my house. He came along painted my house and I sat out on the front porch and watched, commented what a good job he was doing and drank my coffee. Would he not be able to recover because he was an officious intermeddler, even though I sat there and didn't stop him?

yup.

[lawschoolftw]

Thanks so much,

One last question. I think this is fairly obvious but say the person came home from work and then found the painter putting the last touches on the painting of his house no unjust enrichment because he did not have knowledge of it correct?

[dailygrind]

yup.

really, the only situation i know of where unjust enrichment works is where the other party had the last clear chance to avoid an accidentally conferred benefit. it might exist in other circumstances, but it wasn't something we went into in depth.