To the extent that it turns upon unarticulated opinions, rather than defined rules, the principle of unjust enrichment constitutes an illegitimate exercise of personal power.
Given the competing values, the defendant should not be able to defeat the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment merely by pointing to a slight chance that he would not have incurred the expense in the normal course of events.
The plaintiff, who had been unaware of the theft, brought an action in unjust enrichment for the value of his efforts and expenses.
It therefore has been suggested that the first element of the action in unjust enrichment cannot be satisfied because, unless property has passed, the defendant gains nothing and the plaintiff loses nothing.
The action in unjust enrichment cannot be used to override a contractual allocation of risk.
107) A recurring theme throughout unjust enrichment is that a person cannot be held responsible for an act that was the product of an impaired intention.
The latter stipulation, however, has the capacity to create injustice insofar as it may allow a party to retain a substantial benefit without liability in either contract or unjust enrichment.
A choice presumes an appreciation of the consequences and since autonomy is the paramount consideration under the first element of the action in unjust enrichment, free acceptance should be limited, in principle, to cases of actual knowledge (including recklessness and wilful blindness).
To reiterate, the first element of the cause of action in unjust enrichment is concerned with the defendant's receipt of an enrichment.
As discussed below, its claim in unjust enrichment is based on the assertion that it should not be held liable for the consequences of its own mistake.
At worst, the defendant will be required to satisfy judgment by selling an asset that he never would have acquired but for his unjust enrichment.
Liability in unjust enrichment is prima facie strict.