Also known as: unjust enrichment · enrichment at another's expense
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle that one party may not profit from loss or damage inflicted on another.
Lila loaned sculptures to a museum that mistakenly sold them after commissioning restorations that raised their value. The museum's sale destroyed Lila's possessory interest. A court orders the museum to restore the enhanced-value sculptures to Lila rather than retain the profit from its own improvements.
A husband facing divorce proceedings executes a will attempting to leave the marital home to a third party. Title remains in tenancy by the entirety at his death. The surviving wife takes full ownership by operation of law, and the court refuses to impose a constructive trust that would shift value to the devisee.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A mortgagee forecloses on property worth more than the debt and purchases it at a depressed sale price. The mortgagor requests a fair-market-value determination. The court awards the mortgagor a sum reflecting the excess value, ensuring the mortgagee does not retain a surplus created by the foreclosure process.
Corporate officers divert a business opportunity belonging to the corporation for their personal gain. The corporation sues to recover the profits realized from the diverted venture. The court requires the officers to disgorge those profits so they do not retain value created at the corporation's expense.
A consumer alleges that a data broker published inaccurate personal information. The consumer cannot identify any actual financial or reputational harm resulting from the publication. The court dismisses the claim because the plaintiff has not suffered the concrete loss that would allow recovery against the defendant.
A long-term supply contract becomes grossly unfair when aluminum prices rise sharply. The buyer seeks reformation to reflect current market costs. The court adjusts the price term so the seller cannot retain the windfall created by the buyer's continued performance under the original formula.
No. The principle appears in tort conversion cases, probate disputes over joint tenancies, mortgage deficiency calculations, and corporate opportunity claims. It prevents one party from retaining value created by another's loss regardless of the doctrinal label.
A court refuses when the claimant cannot show concrete loss or when the defendant acquired the benefit without wrongful conduct that caused another's damage. The maxim requires both enrichment and a corresponding detriment traceable to the defendant's actions.
Statutes and restatements that award enhanced value or fair-market-value credits implement the maxim by ensuring the injured party, not the wrongdoer, receives the benefit of improvements or market changes that occurred while the property was wrongfully held.
…App. 1977), which had "awarded interest on suspended royalties" based on "the terms of the royalty agreement . . . rather than unjust enrichment." 222 Kan., at 561, 567 P. 2d, at 1317. Significantly, when the Texas Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the Stahl judgment, it relied on the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Shutts…