Unjust enrichment is not an independent theory of liability, but is the basis for a claim of quasi-contractual liability


Law Lessons from Mehrnia v. Emporio Motor Group LLC, Chanc. Div.-Bergen Cnty. (Toskos, J.S.C.), DOCKET NO. BER-C-264-14, February 25, 2016:

To establish unjust enrichment, one party must demonstrate (1) that the other party received a benefit, and (2) that retention of that benefit without payment would be unjust. VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 554 (1994) (citations omitted); see also Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 110 (2007). The doctrine also requires a showing by one party that it expected remuneration from the other party “and that failure of remuneration enriched defendant beyond its contractual rights”. Ibid. Where it is the duty of a party to pay, the law imparts a promise to pay. Callano, supra, 91 N.J. Super. at 108.

A cause of action for unjust enrichment requires proof that defendant received a benefit and that retention of that benefit without payment would be unjust. Unjust enrichment is not an independent theory of liability, but is the basis for a claim of quasi-contractual liability.

[Goldsmith v. Camden Cnty. Surrogate’s Office, 408 N.J. Super. 376, 382 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 200 N.J. 502 (2009).]

NOTE from Paul G. Kostro, Esq.: If you are interested in Mediation; or have issues relating to Divorce, Domestic Violence, Child Support; Landlord-Tenant Matters; Contracts; Business Formation or Disputes; or Other Legal Matters, please call me to schedule an appointment — I can be reached by telephone at (908)232-6500; or by Email.


[HOME]

NOTE: My Law Office is located at 116 South Euclid Avenue, Westfield, Union County, NJ. Telephone: 908-232-6500; Paul@Kostro.com

NOTE: This Blog/Blawg, NJ Family Issues, is managed by Paul G. Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator and collaborative law practitioner in Westfield, Union County, New Jersey.