Unjust enrichment

I truly doubt that this is Grace's best example, but it is still a valid example of a wrong by an intermediate party causing a loss, but not necessarily an unjust enrichment... depends on what he had to pay for it. On the other hand, the thief was certainly unjustly enriched by the amount the third party paid... but there are OTHER CHARGES that apply... that is not a civil court action, but a criminal court charge of theft and fencing... or whatever that is called in criminal court.

I believe Grace detailed a better argument before you posted. So what is your beef?

I agree with you both---it was a pitiful example (although not entirely inaccurate) <<thats a nice way of saying it was MOSTLY WRONG>>>

-----but I had to laugh that someone would come out of the woodwork, say that an answer was wrong, but never think to actually provide a BETTER or more accurate definition.

Too funny.

No beef...just had a chuckle and thought I'd comment.

In Grace's example, the owner's civil recourse against the thief would clearly be in a lawsuit for conversion, which is an intentional tort. Unjust enrichment is a quasi-contractual remedy, and would be an awkward cause of action when a thief steals one's personal property. In order to get the property back from the neighbor in a civil action, the owner would sue for replevin (depending on the jurisdiction). Again, unjust enrichment would be an awkward cause of action, particularly if the neighbor paid for the property (and thus, was not unjustly enriched).

Here's a simple example of unjust enrichment: The bank mistakenly credited your account with $500. You withdrew the money. Although you did nothing wrong, the bank may successfully sue you for unjust enrichment.

It was both pitiful AND entirely inaccurate.

* head pat* (even if I don't agree with your example--- which just happens to be nearly verbatim from another thread).

I often disagree and say why, as you have done. You are certainly welcome to do the same ( and twice, too--Yah, yah, go me!)

You disagree with my example of unjust enrichment? I could probably find a dozen cases with similar fact patterns. Here's the first case that popped up when I conducted a search:

"Lachman created an escrow account in the amount of $30,000 to pay for renovation costs. From September 1998 to December 1998, Union Savings distributed $44,982.02 to Lachman, $14,982.02 more than it should have under the escrow agreement."

Wanna guess why Lachman lost the case and had to reimburse Union Savings?

"An action for "money had and received" is based on a theory of unjust enrichment and "lies when one receives money from another without valuable consideration given on the receiver's part.""

I don't know what thread you're talking about, but you have no business "disagreeing" with my example.

I have never ever told someone they could not disagree with me. In fact, I encourage people who DO disagree to explain why--which is what you have done. We are free to disagree--whether or not I have your permission to do so really isn't any of my concern.

Lord have mercy, that's funny, though. I have to ask--did you *stomp* your foot when you wrote that??

I didn't write that you could not disagree with me. I wrote that you have no business doing so. Why do you have no business doing so? Because you're opinions about the law are uninformed.

Therefore, you are as free to disagree with my unjust enrichment example as you are to disagree with a math professor about the sum of 1+1. In both cases you'll look rather foolish, however.

I've been thought of worse, by better than Internet strangers. I shall try to struggle on.

While the law allows, at times, more than one interpretation of any particular law, unfortunately, our language isn't nearly so permissive. It always enriches my life (not to mention amuses me to no end) when people who cannot spell want to comment on their superiority in other areas. (It's "your" not "you're"). I figure as long as I have mastered the subtle nuances of fourth grade grammar, I can muddle through somehow.

However, I disagree with both you and the original posters premise regarding unjust enrichment and I do so without littering my posting with adjectives personally referencing either of you. Try it.

Perhaps it would be a better use of your time to help the original poster by addressing his situation? He, at least, cares. You owe it to all mankind to do good with your special powers. (My five year old just came in the room and informed me that was HIS plan for today).

In any regard, it pales in comparison to the time in 10th grade I left the house without my skirt on underneath my coat.

Life is all downhill after that point.

(I did, however, get two phone numbers).

So my foster child who stole my wedding ring and a gold neck chain could be sued in civil court for conversion, while her brother who received the neck chain could be sued for replevin, but her girlfriend who took the credit card was jailed for theft... and I don't KNOW what happened to her, but that is my only interaction with the police who castigated me for taking in a 14 year old whose parent kicked her out. Seems her father was convicted of distributing pot to jail inmates where he worked and both her brothers were convicted of theft and grand theft. She is now a married mother of four with no ambition but who still comes around asking for work and handouts. Not far from the tree, but influenced by me to at least ask for work. Thank goodness! I need household help.

Thank you for the list of charges I could use in civil court. Not that I would. They hocked all the gold. I'd really like to sue the fence location for unjust enrichment or whatever criminal court calls fencing, since he only gave them $20*2 for more than $1000 worth of gold.

So what would I call it to get back pieces she fenced? ... I'm 26 years too late on those pieces, but if anything else shows up missing I would need to know.