Civil law
How to Bring Claims Under Unjust Enrichment Theory When No Express Contract Exists Between Parties.
An evergreen guide explaining how to pursue unjust enrichment claims when parties lack a formal contract, including core principles, essential elements, evidentiary standards, strategies for proving benefits conferred, and practical steps for pursuing remedies in civil court without a written agreement.
August 09, 2025 - 3 min Read
When a court hears a dispute where no express contract governs the relationship, unjust enrichment serves as a fallback theory to prevent one party from retaining a benefit that another party conferred. This framework rests on three core elements: a measurable benefit received by one party, an understanding that the recipient should not retain the benefit at the expense of the contributor, and an inequitable result if retention proceeds without compensation. Courts assess these elements in light of the surrounding facts, including services rendered, goods delivered, or the use of a resource that belonged to another. The doctrine operates as a fairness check in absence of a formal contract.
The first step in pursuing an unjust enrichment claim is establishing the presence of a measurable benefit conferred by the plaintiff. This involves identifying concrete things like money, services, or access to valuable information that enhanced the defendant’s position. The plaintiff must show that the benefit would be unjustly retained without payment or restitution. Courts look for a direct nexus between the recipient’s gains and the plaintiff’s contributions, rather than vague or speculative advantages. Documentation, timelines, and correspondence can be pivotal in proving that the defendant benefited precisely because of the plaintiff’s actions, creating a legal obligation to compensate.
How to prove the enrichment and quantify remedies.
Proving that the defendant knowingly accepted the benefit is often crucial. While express knowledge of the enrichment is not always required, courts typically look for the recipient’s awareness that the contributions were made for their advantage. This awareness can be inferred from the circumstances, such as continued use of services, acceptance of goods without objections, or persistent advancement of the defendant’s interests after the plaintiff’s contributions. The plaintiff should also demonstrate that the enrichment occurred under circumstances where it would be unjust for the recipient to retain the benefit without paying. Evidence like invoices, delivery records, or correspondence helps establish this link.
Causation plays a central role in unjust enrichment cases. The plaintiff must connect the defendant’s retention of the benefit to the plaintiff’s specific actions or payments. If the defendant would have achieved the same result without the plaintiff’s contributions, the claim weakens. Conversely, if the defendant would be disadvantaged without the plaintiff’s assistance, restitution becomes more persuasive. Courts examine whether alternative explanations exist for the defendant’s gains and whether the plaintiff’s contributions directly caused those gains. Clear causal linkage strengthens the case and supports the equitable remedy of compensation.
Practical steps to prepare an unjust enrichment claim.
Quantifying the remedy in unjust enrichment matters can be nuanced. Courts often determine restitution by focusing on the value of the benefit conferred, not on the contract price that would have existed if a formal agreement had been in place. The calculation might involve the market value of goods or services, the actual outlay by the plaintiff, or a fair measure of the defendant’s increased wealth resulting from the plaintiff’s efforts. The plaintiff’s burden includes presenting credible valuation that can withstand scrutiny at trial. Expert testimony, appraisals, and credible market data frequently play critical roles in this phase.
In pursuing remedies, plaintiffs may seek money damages that reflect the reasonable value of the benefit conferred. Some jurisdictions allow restitution to restore the plaintiff to their original position, not punitive improvements to the defendant’s wealth. Courts may tailor remedies to the unique facts, sometimes awarding a percentage of the benefit or a full restitution amount, depending on proportionality and the degree of unjust enrichment. Procedural steps include filing a complaint, gathering corroborating documents, and engaging in pretrial discovery to uncover the precise value of contributions. Settlement discussions can also emerge as a practical avenue to resolution.
Anticipating defenses and sharpening the pleadings.
A well-prepared case begins with a thorough factual chronology showing who contributed what, when, and how the defendant benefited. The plaintiff should assemble all relevant records: payments, correspondence, receipts, and any communications indicating consent or expectation of reimbursement. It is essential to identify any contemporaneous understandings, however informal, that imply the defendant’s obligation to compensate. If the defendant disputes the existence of a contract, the plaintiff should emphasize the lack of an explicit agreement and demonstrate why equity requires restitution. A clear narrative linking the plaintiff’s actions to the defendant’s gains helps judges grasp the fairness principle underlying unjust enrichment.
Failure to acknowledge potential defenses can undermine a claim. Defendants may argue there was an express contract governing the exchange, even if none exists in writing. They might contend that the plaintiff’s conduct was gratuitous or that benefits were conferred as a gift without legal obligation. Other defenses include the absence of a direct link between the plaintiff’s actions and the defendant’s gains, or the existence of independent value that would have accrued regardless of the plaintiff’s involvement. Anticipating and addressing these defenses in pleadings strengthens the position by clarifying the equity-based rationale for restitution.
Building a credible evidentiary record for restitution.
The pleading stage requires precise articulation of the unjust enrichment theory, along with supportive factual allegations. The plaintiff should spell out how the defendant benefited, the nature of the contribution, and why the retention of the benefit would be unjust. Pleadings may include counts for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, or restitution, depending on jurisdiction. The complaint should also request a remedy proportionate to the identified value of the contribution and the extent of the defendant’s gains. Avoiding boilerplate language and providing concrete, verifiable facts increases the likelihood of early case advancement and favorable pretrial rulings.
Discovery should be targeted to establish the value of the plaintiff’s contributions and the defendant’s gains. Document requests, interrogatories, and depositions can uncover the scope of benefits, timelines, and the defendant’s awareness of the contributions. Seek evidence of prior arrangements or intentions to compensate, even if informal. Expert witnesses may be necessary to convert qualitative benefits into monetary terms. The discovery plan should aim to produce a robust evidentiary record that supports the remedial claim and withstands challenges at trial, ensuring the case can proceed efficiently toward resolution.
Settlement dynamics often shape unjust enrichment cases, with many disputes resolving before trial through negotiated agreements. Mediation can be effective when both sides recognize that a court’s decision would hinge on broad equity principles rather than a contract-specific clause. The plaintiff’s strategy should emphasize the fairness of restitution and the risk of unjustly enriching the defendant without compensation. While pursuing settlement, parties should maintain detailed documentation of all contributions and benefits received, as this strengthens negotiation positions and preserves options for court action if settlement fails.
Finally, consider the broader implications of pursuing unjust enrichment in civil litigation. Even when no express contract exists, the law recognizes that fairness requires restitution in appropriate circumstances. The strength of such claims rests on clear links between contributions and benefits, along with the demonstrable inequity of allowing the recipient to keep gains without paying. Practitioners should tailor arguments to the governing jurisdiction’s nuances, including defenses, valuation standards, and remedies. With careful factual development and persuasive ethical framing, a plaintiff can secure relief that reflects the true value of the contributed resources or services.
