Money Had and Received and Unjust Enrichment
as theories of recovery under Texas law
Unjust enrichment and money had and
received are examples of quasi-contract theories. See Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671, 684 (Tex.
2000); Merry Homes, Inc. v. Luc Dao, 359 S.W.3d 881, 883 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.). A quasi-contract, or a "contract implied in
law," is "not a contract at all but an obligation imposed by law to
do justice even though it is clear that no promise was ever made or
intended." Bank of Am. v. Jeff
Taylor LLC, 358 S.W.3d 848, 856 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2012, no pet) (quoting Fortune Prod. Co., 52 S.W.3d at
684).
Unjust enrichment occurs when the person
sought to be charged has wrongfully secured a benefit or has passively received
one that it would be unconscionable to retain. Villareal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., 136 S.W.3d 265, 270 (Tex.
App.-San Antonio 2004, pet. denied). "To prove a claim for money had and
received, a plaintiff must show that a defendant holds money which in equity
and good conscience belongs to him." MGA
Ins. Co. v, Charles R. Chesnutt, P.C., 358 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2012, no pet.); accord
Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distrib., L.P., 252 S.W.3d 833, 837 (Tex.
App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied).
SOURCE: DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS -
05-12-00534-CV - 6/19/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment