Even if the parties do not have an enforceable contract, Minnesota law can still require a defendant to pay restitution to the plaintiff for the benefit received by the defendant. In order to establish a claim for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must show that the defendant knowingly received something of value to which he was not entitled, and that the circumstances are such that it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the benefit. Acton Constr. Co. v. State, 383 N.W.2d 416, 417 (Minn. App. 1986) (the elements of a quasi contract are: (1) a benefit is conferred; (2) the defendant appreciates and knowingly accepts the benefit; and (3) the defendant's retention of the benefit under the circumstances would be inequitable.).
An action for unjust enrichment does exist simply because one party benefits from the efforts of others; instead, it must be shown that the plaintiff was unjustly enriched in the sense that the term ‘unjustly' could mean illegally, unlawfully (e.g., fraudulent) or even morally wrongfully enriched. First Nat'l Bank of St. Paul v. Ramier, 311 N.W.2d 502, 504 (Minn. 1981).
Featured Practice Areas
Our Contact Information
The Kuhn Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
17800 Excelsior Blvd., Suite 100
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Tel: (612) 860-8757
Fax: (612) 234-4417
Email: cjkuhn@thekuhnlawfirm.com
Legal Information Center
American Bar Association
Caveat Emptor Blog
Cornell Law
Asset Protection
Free Legal Advice
Find Law
Law.com
Law Guru
Minnesota Secretary of State