You kept this person's money with no basis. In other words you screwed this person out of their hard earned money.
[SUB](You forgot to take the needed salt tablets before swallowing roadkill’s "
theory".)[/SUB]
So robbery, larceny, embezzlement, pilfering your neighbor’s water melons, fudging on your tax returns, card counting at Vegas, and cheating at golf would all fall under the equity doctrine of
unjust enrichment? Right?
Does it only apply when the money is “
hard earned”? How about hits on illegal gaming or crack houses?
Apparently the law professors at “
Elbonia U” failed to mention to you and “
roadkill” that the equitable doctrines of "
quantum meruit” and “unj
ust enrichment”
DO NOT APPLY WHEN THERE IS AN ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW!
And here there is a remedy under contract law.
An agreement was struck whereby the owner agreed to sell and the buyers agreed to purchase the camp trailer. The prospective buyers put down $500 towards the purchase price. The owner then sold it to a third party. The buyers have a remedy for breach of contract.
But suppose (hypothetically) this.
The husband gave the wife $500 cash to hold the camp trailer. The wife mistakenly gives the cash to the owner’s neighbor. The neighbor blows the $500 on crack or at the racetrack and refuses to return the money.
Now there is no contract between the buyers and the neighbor giving them an adequate remedy at law. So equity steps in with the theory of unjust enrichment, or as you put it the neighbor
“screwed them out of their hard earned money”. Understand?