Case 9-4 Jasdip Properties SC, v. Estate of Richardson

Summary

1. JASDIP agreed to purchase property from Richardson, paid portion but couldn't afford full amount, so Richardson rescinded the contract 2. JASDIP sued for the $210,000 they'd already paid, claiming Richardson would be unjustly enriched if he kept the money.

Where are we?

Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2011

Issue?

Under the theory of quasi contracts and restitution, should the buy be given back his money?

Interpretation

Implied in law or quasi contracts are not considered contracts at all, but are akin to restitution which permits recovery of that amount the defendant has been benefited at the expense of the plaintiff in order to prevent unjust enrichment

Reasons

Restitution is a remedy to prevent unjust enrichment. Implied in law or quasi-contract are not considered contracts at all, but are akin to restitution which permits recovery of that amount the defendant has been benefitted at the expense of the plaintiff in order to preclude unjust enrichment. Buyer met the requirement to recover under the theory of restitution: 1) buyer paid seller 205,000 towards purchase price and sale did not go through even though no party breached; 2) seller kept 205,000 although he also retained the property; 3) seller keeping the 205,000 is inequitable because the seller still has property.

Decision

Reversed. Awarded Jasdip money. Met the requirements of a quasi-contract, must prevent unjust enrichment