Unjust Enrichment
Unjust enrichment is a legal obligation created in the absence of an enforceable contract to remedy the unjust retention of a benefit conferred upon a party. Sometimes, one or both parties to a transaction believe they have a contract and they then take actions under that assumption only to later discovery that, for any of number of reasons, the contract is not enforceable.
In such cases, one party confers a benefit to the other party such that even without an enforceable contract it would be unfair to allow the receiving party to retain the benefit without compensation. In that event, the party that gave the benefit can seek recovery based on unjust enrichment.
“A contract implied in law, or ‘quasi contract,’ operates when there is no contract ‘to provide a remedy where one party was unjustly enriched, where that party received a benefit under circumstances that made it unjust to retain it without giving compensation.’” Ocean Communs., Inc. v. Bubeck, 956 So. 2d 1222, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quotation omitted). “If no express or implied-in-fact contract exists, a party may recover under quasi-contract.” Baron v. Osman, 39 So. 3d 449, 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). “A quasi-contract, which is synonymous with unjust enrichment, differs from an express or implied-in-fact contract in that it is not based upon the parties’ assent.” Id.
“Rather, it is an obligation created by the law to remedy the unjust retention of a benefit conferred by another.” Baron, 39 So. 3d at 451. “A cause of action for a quasi-contract will exist where: (1) a plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) a defendant had knowledge of the benefit; (3) a defendant accepted or retained the benefit; and (4) the circumstances make it unjust to retain the benefit without compensation.” Id.
However, “a plaintiff cannot pursue an equitable theory, such as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit, to prove entitlement to relief if an express contract exists.” Ocean Communs., Inc., 956 So. 2d at 1225. In other words, unjust enrichment is only available in the situation where the parties do not have an enforceable contract. See also, Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“It is well settled that the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter.”). If there is an enforceable contract, the parties must seek recovery for breach of contract.
When unjust enrichment applies, damages are calculated in one of two ways. “Damages in an action for unjust enrichment ‘may be valued based on either (1) the market value of the services; or (2) the value of the services to the party unjustly enriched.’” Paschen v. B&B Site Dev., Inc., 311 So. 3d 39, 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quotation omitted).
“The measure of damages for unjust enrichment is the value of the benefit conferred, not the amount the plaintiff hoped to receive or the cost to the plaintiff.” Paschen, 311 So. 3d at 50. See also, Levine v. Fieni McFarlane, Inc., 690 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (damages for unjust enrichment are based on value from the standpoint of the recipient of the benefits); Zaleznik v. Gulf Coast Roofing Co., Inc., 576 So.2d 776, 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (unjust enrichment permits a party to recover the fair market value of their goods and services as a damage remedy); Tooltrend, Inc. v. CMT Utensili, SRL, 198 F.3d 802, 806 (11th Cir. 1999) (applying Florida law and stating that unjust enrichment is “measured in terms of the benefit to the owner, not the cost to the provider”).