unjust enrichment doctrine in Rhode Island

2001The doctrine of unjust enrichment "permits the recovery in certain instances where a person has received from another a benefit, the retention of which, would be unjust under some legal principle, a situation which equity has established or recognized." Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. v. Newport Hospital, 108 R.I. 86 , 93, 272 A.2d 329 , 332 (1971). "[T]he unjust enrichment doctrine has for its basis that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit that has come to him [or her] at the expense of another and that it is not necessary in order to c

2001The doctrine of unjust enrichment "permits the recovery in certain instances where a person has received from another a benefit, the retention of which, would be unjust under some legal principle, a situation which equity has established or recognized." Merchants Mutual Insurance Co. v. Newport Hospital, 108 R.I. 86 , 93, 272 A.2d 329 , 332 (1971). "[T]he unjust enrichment doctrine has for its basis that in a given situation it is contrary to equity and good conscience for one to retain a benefit that has come to him [or her] at the expense of another and that it is not necessary in order to c

2016As a result, “unjust enrichment focuses on the propriety of a payee or beneficiary retaining funds or a benefit * * Process Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. DiGregorio, Inc., 93 A.3d 1047, 1052 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Parnoff v. Yuille, 139 Conn. App. 147 , 57 A.3d 349 , 355 n.7 (2012)).

2016As a result, “unjust enrichment focuses on the propriety of a payee or beneficiary retaining funds or a benefit * * Process Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. DiGregorio, Inc., 93 A.3d 1047, 1052 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Parnoff v. Yuille, 139 Conn. App. 147 , 57 A.3d 349 , 355 n.7 (2012)).

2016To recover on an unjust enrichment claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that he or she conferred a benefit upon the party from whom relief is sought; (2) that the recipient appreciated the benefit; and (3) that the recipient accepted the benefit under such circumstances ‘that it would be inequitable for [the recipient] to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof.’ ” Id. (quoting Bouchard v. Price, 694 A.2d 670, 673 (R.I. 1997)).

2011In Eastern Motor Inns, Inc. v. Ricci , 565 A.2d 1265 , 1272 (R.I. 1989), our Supreme Court held that a purchaser is not entitled to restitution under the doctrine of unjust enrichment "[w]hen [the] party makes improvements or confers a benefit upon the land of another with full knowledge that title is vested in another, or subject to dispute. . . ." The reasoning behind this conclusion was "that the money expended by the purchaser was part of its ordinary cost of doing business and that the parties were engaged in an arms-length business transaction, fully aware of the attendant risks and obli

2007Contrary to the Colvins' assertion, the proper measure of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is "the fair and reasonable value of the work done." ADP Marshall, Inc. v. Brown University , 784 A.2d 309 , 312 (R.I. 2001) (citing Iannuccillo v. Material Sand and Stone *Page 12 Corp. , 713 A.2d 1234 , 1240 (R.I. 1998)).

2007Contrary to the Colvins' assertion, the proper measure of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is "the fair and reasonable value of the work done." ADP Marshall, Inc. v. Brown University , 784 A.2d 309 , 312 (R.I. 2001) (citing Iannuccillo v. Material Sand and Stone *Page 12 Corp. , 713 A.2d 1234 , 1240 (R.I. 1998)).

2007Contrary to the Colvins' assertion, the proper measure of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is "the fair and reasonable value of the work done." ADP Marshall, Inc. v. Brown University , 784 A.2d 309 , 312 (R.I. 2001) (citing Iannuccillo v. Material Sand and Stone *Page 12 Corp. , 713 A.2d 1234 , 1240 (R.I. 1998)).

2007Contrary to the Colvins' assertion, the proper measure of damages for an unjust enrichment claim is "the fair and reasonable value of the work done." ADP Marshall, Inc. v. Brown University , 784 A.2d 309 , 312 (R.I. 2001) (citing Iannuccillo v. Material Sand and Stone *Page 12 Corp. , 713 A.2d 1234 , 1240 (R.I. 1998)).

2001In Rhode Island, "actions brought upon theories of unjust enrichment and quasi-contract are essentially the same." Bouchard v. Price, 694 A.2d 670 , 673 (R.I. 1997) (quoting R B Electric Co. v. Amco Construction Co., 471 A.2d 1351 , 1355 (R.I. 1984).

1979The duty, which thus forms the foundation of a quasi-contractual obligation, is frequently based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.’ ” Id. at 66 , 249 A.2d at 417 , quoting 12 Am.Jur.

1979The duty, which thus forms the foundation of a quasi-contractual obligation, is frequently based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.’ ” Id. at 66 , 249 A.2d at 417 , quoting 12 Am.Jur.

1971Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393 , 216 A.2d 814 ; Dean v. Mattox, 250 N.C. 246 , 108 S.E.2d 541 .

1971Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393 , 216 A.2d 814 ; Dean v. Mattox, 250 N.C. 246 , 108 S.E.2d 541 .

1971Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393 , 216 A.2d 814 ; Dean v. Mattox, 250 N.C. 246 , 108 S.E.2d 541 .

1971Connecticut National Bank v. Chapman, 153 Conn. 393 , 216 A.2d 814 ; Dean v. Mattox, 250 N.C. 246 , 108 S.E.2d 541 .

1969Home Savings Bank v. General Finance Corp., 10 Wis.2d 417 , 103 N.W.2d 117 .

1969Home Savings Bank v. General Finance Corp., 10 Wis.2d 417 , 103 N.W.2d 117 .