Restitution

Question 1

Third Restatement of Restitution §107. Effect of Existence of Bargain upon Right to Restitution

Answer 1

1. A person of full capacity who, pursuant to a contract with another, has performed services or transferred property to the other or otherwise has conferred a benefit upon him, is not entitled to compensation therefor other than in accordance with the terms of such bargain, unless the transaction is rescinded for fraud, mistake, duress, undue influence or illegality, or unless the other has failed to perform his part of the bargain.
   
   2. In the absence of circumstances indicating otherwise, it is inferred that a person who requests another to perform services for him or to transfer property to him thereby bargains to pay therefor.

Question 2

Third Restatement of Restitution §20. Protection Of Another’s Life Or Health

Answer 2

1. A person who performs, supplies, or obtains professional services required for the protection of another’s life or health is entitled to restitution from the other as necessary to prevent unjust enrichment, if the circumstances justify the decision to intervene without request.
   
   2. Unjust enrichment under this section is measured by a reasonable charge for the services in question.

Question 3

Credit Bureau Enterprises, In. v. Pelo

Answer 3

Facts: Pelo had manic episode. He was hospitalized. Never consented to payment. Eventually did under duress. Refused to pay.

Unjust enrichment can be enforced in situations for non-gratiuous actions of medical practicioners with regard to people

Question 4

section 116 of the Restatement of Restitution (4 Steps)

Answer 4

A person who has supplied things or services to another, although acting without the other’s knowledge or consent, is entitled to restitution therefor from the other if

1) He acted unofficiously and with intent to charge therefor
2) The things or services were necessary to prevent the other from suffering serious bodily harm or pain.
3) The person supplying them had no reason to know that the other would not consent to receiving them, if mentally competent.
4) It was impossible for the other to give consent or; because of extreme youth or mental impairment, the other’s consent would have been immaterial.

Question 5

Restitution section 116 comment B (Mental Illness)

Answer 5

Knowledge of dissent. There can be no restitution for services or things rendered to a person who refuses to accept the services and who is of sufficient mental capacity to understand the necessity of receiving them. . . .  If, however, the person is insane, or if he is otherwise not fully mentally competent,  . . .  a person rendering necessaries or professional services is entitled to recover from such person under the conditions stated in this Section, although the person expresses an unwillingness to accept the things or services.3

Question 6

Commerce Partnership 8098 Limited Partnership v. Equity Contracting Co.

Answer 6

Equity was a subcontractor. Gen Contractor never paid them…then went bankrupt. Implied in law (Restitution Case). Subcontractors can sue owner (Third Party) under restitution, but in this instance the owner actually paid more than the contract price between the general contractor and sub contractors.

Question 7

Elements of Restitution.

Answer 7

Elements of a cause of action for a quasi contract are that:
1. The plaintiff has conferred a benefit on the defendant;

2. The defendant has knowledge of the benefit
3. The defendant has accepted or retained the benefit conferred
4. The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.

Question 8

Restatement of Restitution §28 Unmarried Cohabitants

Answer 8

If two persons have formerly lived together in a relationship resembling marriage, and if one of them owns a specific asset to which the other has made substantial, uncompensated contributions in the form of property or services, the person making such contributions has a claim in restitution against the owner as necessary to prevent unjust enrichment upon the dissolution of the relationship.The rule of subsection (1) may be displaced, modified, or supplemented by local domestic relations law.