Unjust Enrichment Clause Samples
The Unjust Enrichment clause is designed to prevent one party from unfairly benefiting at the expense of another without a valid legal basis. In practice, this clause requires that if a party receives money, goods, or services to which they are not entitled, they must return or compensate for the value received. For example, if a payment is made in error or services are provided without a binding contract, the recipient may be obligated to reimburse the provider. The core function of this clause is to ensure fairness by discouraging and remedying situations where one party is unjustly enriched, thereby promoting equitable outcomes in contractual relationships.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 8 times
Unjust Enrichment. The credit union has the right to reverse a transaction, take collection action or demand restitution when a member profits or is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, or at the expense of the credit union because of a clerical or system error. The member will be required to make restitution for the reasonable value of any cash, negotiable instrument, property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. INACTIVE ACCOUNTS - If your account has had no activity for at least six (6) months, has less than a $50.00 aggregate balance and no open loans, it can be assessed an “Inactive Account Fee” as disclosed in the schedule of Fees & Charges (or any part therein, if your account balance is below the fee) each quarter, for as long as the account remains inactive. If your account reaches a zero balance, it will be closed. To reactivate your account and avoid the fee, please contact the credit union.
Unjust Enrichment. In case you notice a refund has been received twice for the same transaction, for example in both your Wise Account and from a merchant, you are required immediately to let us know, and we always reserve the right to debit back a previously issued refund when a refund for the same transaction has been provided by the merchant as well, without prior notice.
Unjust Enrichment. When Article 1.8 applies, and where either party in the performance of the Agreement derived a benefit before the termination of the Agreement, the party deriving such a benefit shall pay to the other party a sum of money equivalent to the value of such benefit.
Unjust Enrichment. There is no agreement or contract, but a benefit has been conferred upon a party
Unjust Enrichment. As set out above, the Defendants have been enriched by the collection, retention, and use of the Private Information from Class Members. 108. The Plaintiff and Class Members have been deprived through the loss of privacy and Private Information.
Unjust Enrichment. Ravich, RRT and RRP re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 189 as though fully set forth herein.
Unjust Enrichment. (On behalf of the Nationwide and Hawaii Classes)
Unjust Enrichment. To the extent that any unjust enrichment ----------------- penalties are assessed against one or both of the Sellers as result of the License Transfer, the Company shall assume all of the Sellers' obligations and liabilities related to such penalty.
Unjust Enrichment. Nothing in this Agreement, precludes, blocks or otherwise eliminates a Founder’s standing to bring a claim against the other Founders or the Corporation for unjust enrichment or other similar cause of action.
Unjust Enrichment. [¶49.] “Unjust enrichment occurs ‘when one confers a benefit upon another who accepts or acquiesces in that benefit, making it inequitable to retain that benefit without paying.’” ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Fam. P’ship v. Midland Farms, 2015 S.D. 50, ¶ 19, 865 N.W.2d 854, 862 (quoting ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2003 S.D. 25, ¶ 15, 658 N.W.2d 783, 788). “A party alleging unjust enrichment must show that the other party both received and knew he was receiving a benefit. Additionally, it must be inequitable to allow the enriched party to retain the benefit without paying for it.” ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2018 S.D. 73, ¶ 30, 919 N.W.2d 356, 366. [¶50.] ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s counterclaim alleged that ▇▇▇▇ was unjustly enriched by improvements he made to the house on the real property he leased, including a remodel of the upstairs with repairs to floors, paint, duct work, and lights. A steel structure with kennels was also built on the property and a waterline was brought to the house from that building. [¶51.] There is no dispute that ▇▇▇▇ received some benefit, and, at least in some cases, she knew she was receiving a benefit. The dispute is centered on the third element of unjust enrichment—whether it would be inequitable to allow ▇▇▇▇ to retain the benefit without paying for it. This, in turn, prompts an inquiry into the nature of the transfer or transaction: An enrichment is unjust if it “lacks an adequate legal basis; [i.e.,] it results from a transaction that the law treats as ineffective to work a conclusive alteration in ownership rights. Broadly speaking, an ineffective transaction for these purposes is one that is nonconsensual.”
. a person who without mistake, coercion[,] or request has unconditionally conferred a benefit upon another is not entitled to restitution[.]’” Id. (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 475 N.W.2d 569, 574 (S.D. 1991)). Additionally, “in the absence of an agreement that the landlord will pay for improvements or a statute imposing liability on the landlord, a tenant is not entitled to compensation for improvements made to the leasehold even though they cannot be removed by the lessee.” ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2018 S.D. 73, ¶ 32, 919 N.W.2d at 366 (quoting Commercial Tr. & [¶53.] ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ does not claim that he was mistaken or coerced, or that ▇▇▇▇ requested him to make the improvements to the property. He also does not allege, beyond general, non-specific assertions, that there was any agreement between ▇▇▇▇ and him that she would pay for any o...