In a cause of action for unjust enrichment the defendant may assert certain defenses against the plaintiff's lawsuit. For example, liability for unjust enrichment will not be found and restitution will not be required where there is no implied contract between the parties. Quasi contracts differ from express contracts and contracts implied in fact because they rest upon the assent of the parties, whereas quasi-contracts do not rest upon such assent. A quasi contract is not a contract at all; rather, a contract implied in law is a legal fiction. The fiction was adopted by the courts to provide a remedy where one party was unjustly enriched. Therefore, a claim for unjust enrichment fails upon a showing by a defendant that an express contract actually exists.

Additionally, the theory of unjust enrichment exists when a defendant retains money or benefits from the goods or services of another. In other words, a plaintiff must directly confer a benefit on the defendant to prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment. Furthermore, there must be actual damages incurred by the plaintiff. However, a cause of action for unjust enrichment cannot exist where the defendant has paid the plaintiff for the benefit conferred.

Another defense the defendant may assert is that the money paid under a mistake of fact cannot be reclaimed where the plaintiff has received a substantial benefit from the payment. Moreover, where the defendant received the payment in good faith in satisfaction of an equitable claim an action for unjust enrichment will not be recoverable.

Therefore, to sustain a cause of action for unjust enrichment despite the defenses that a defendant may try to assert, it is essential that a plaintiff consult a qualified West Palm Beach unjust enrichment lawyer. Call Sharmin & Sharmin P.A. at 1-800-74-TRIAL.