unjust enrichment

Subscribe to unjust enrichment via RSS

Aquatic Renovations Sys. v. Vill. of Walbridge, 2018 Ohio App. Lexis 1581 (April 13, 2018)

This post was published on July 7, 2018 in The Pennsylvania Record.

On May 2, 2012, Aquatic Renovations Systems, Inc. (“Aquatic”) entered into a contract with the Village of Walbridge (“the Village”) for the installation of a new pool liner (“Contract 1”).  Prior thereto, the Village council adopted an ordinance which authorized the mayor to enter into Contract 1 (“Ordinance”).  On April 12, 2013, the mayor signed a new contract for the balance of the work (“Contract 2”).  A few days after Aquatic completed its work, the pool liner began to lift.  The Village then refused to pay Aquatic for the completed and approved work.

Aquatic sued the Village for non-payment, alleging the Village breached Contract 2.  Aquatic also alleged that the Village was liable under a theory of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.  The trial court granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Contract 2 was not valid because it did not comply with the Ohio Revised Statute which required the mayor, the clerk, and the Village administrator to authorize all Village Contracts.  Thus, because Contract 2 was unenforceable, Aquatic could not recover under a breach of contract, quantum meruit or unjust enrichment theory.

Lydon-Millwright, Inc. v. Ernest Bock & Sons, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65019 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2013)

This case arises out of a construction project at the Philadelphia International Airport to install a baggage handling system. Bock was the general contractor. Bock contracted Lydon to install the mechanical portion of the baggage handling system. The parties’ purchase order required Lydon to submit a release of liens and claims with each monthly payment application. Over the course of the project, Lydon submitted 54 payment applications, all of which contained the required release of liens and claims.

SRC Constr. Corp of Monroe v. Atl. City Housing Auth.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47301 (D.N.J. April 2, 2013)

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a defendant architect’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the economic loss doctrine applies only to bar tort claims between parties to a contract.

SAK Construction of CA, L.P. v. PSC Industrial Outsourcing, L.P.
2012 U.S. Dist LEXIS 123473 (E.D. Mo. 2012)

This action arose out of the Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant Interceptor Project in Los Angeles County, California. General Contractor, SAK Construction of CA, L.P. (“SAK”) was retained by the County to perform sewer rehabilitation work. SAK subcontracted with PSC Industrial Outsourcing, L.P. (“PSC”) to perform the inspection, cleaning, waste removal and disposal work on the Project. The Project consisted of rehabilitating 16 stretches or “shots” of pipeline.

Northeast Fence & Iron Works, Inc. v. Murphy Quigley Co.
933 A.2d 664, 2007 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3092 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 18, 2007)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that a subcontractor could recover on a theory of unjust enrichment against a contractor where the subcontractor proved that it performed work for which it was not paid and that this work satisfied the contractor’s obligations to a third party. The Subcontractor was not required to prove payment to the Contractor by the Owner.