THE QUASI-CONTRACTUAL ASPECTS OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Abstract

This article focuses on the aspects of unjust enrichment that originated and developed in the common law rather than equity. Its purpose is the analysis of four categories of recovery, distinguishable from other categories of recovery on the basis that they are concerned with the recovery of liquidated sums of money and involve implied obligations as distinct from implied contracts. First, the author discusses cases where there was no intention to enrich, focusing specifically on the doctrines of mistake and compulsion. Second to be discussed are cases where an original intention to enrich was changed. The focus here is on failure of consideration and illegal contracts. Third to be discussed is the case where there was an intention to enrich someone (incidentally benefiting the defendant) without the request of the defendant. This section focuses on the recovery of property and common liability. Finally, the author examines those cases where there was an intention to confer a benefit on the defendant, directly or indirectly, at the request of the defendant. The focus is on payments by request, quantum meruit, void and unenforceable contracts and contracts for necessaries.