Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag Archives: Unjust Enrichment

Tort/Negligence – Defective Windows – MDL – Ohio Law – Unjust Enrichment – Fraudulent Concealment – Consumer Sales Practices Act (access required)

Wani v. MI Windows & Doors, Inc. Where plaintiffs are not the original purchasers of their home or its windows, there was no economic transaction between plaintiffs and defendant, the manufacturer of the windows. Therefore, plaintiffs have not alleged that defendant retained any benefit to which it was not justly entitled.

Read More »

Real Property – Easements – Contract – Unjust Enrichment – Matters Outside Easement – Public Utilities (access required)

Dutton v. Carolina Power & Light Co. Even though there is an express contract between the parties – an easement – since plaintiff contends that defendant is using the easement for purposes not covered by the easement, plaintiff has made out a claim for unjust enrichment. Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

Read More »

Contract – Commercial Lease – Unjust Enrichment – Security Deposit (access required)

Atlantic Coast Builders and Contractors, LLC v. Lewis Where the respondent sued after discovering the office space it contracted to lease was actually zoned rural and prohibited almost all commercial uses, the Court of Appeals properly found that: (1) the two-issue rule precluded addressing the merits of petitioner’s argument since she failed to challenge all three grounds on which the master’s judgment was based; and (2) the issue regarding the security deposit was not preserved for appeal since petitioner never argued until direct appeal that she should retain the security deposit.

Read More »

Contract – Rescission – Unjust Enrichment — Real Property – Sale – Earnest Money & Extension Fees — Attorney’s Fees (access required)

JASDIP Properties SC, LLC v. Estate of Richardson Where a jury determined that neither party breached a contract which called for plaintiff to buy a commercial property from defendant, the trial court should have required the defendant-seller to return $215,000 in earnest money and fees to the plaintiff-buyer. We reverse and remand the trial court’s denial of the buyer’s unjust enrichment and attorney’s fees claims.

Read More »