Thank you for bringing up "unjust enrichment." PM is seeking reimbursement for work the owner had no knowledge was being performed/installed, never approved and did not have "the choice to reject" (as explained in previous post). This fits in well with definitions of unjust enrichment or at least the "choice principle:"You obviously do not understand what you quoted about unjust enrichment. What you quoted would not apply to your situation. The pm didn’t perform work for you he is seeking to get paid for. He is seeking reimbursement for work you wanted and needed that he paid for simply to facilitate the work being done In an expeditious manner.
Cornell Law School said:
Which does not apply to the subject situation. The PM's actions are illegal, among other things.As to What exception? This exception
a) Subdivision (b) of Section 10131 does not apply to (1) the manager of a hotel, motel, auto and trailer park, to the resident manager of an apartment building, apartment complex, or court, or to the employees of that manager,
The PM's unauthorized actions, the damage it caused the owner and an amicable settlement will be discussed with PM, before any court. Ok. Thanks for the feedback.With that, I’m done. Sue or don’t sue; pay or don’t pay.
It’s your decision and you will have to deal with the results of your actions.