Boyrazoglu Tarim Ticaret Sanayi Ltd. Sti v. Ingredientrade.com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “where an express contract governs the relationship of the parties, a party’s recovery is limited to the measure provided in the express contract”
• rejecting unjust enrichment claim brought by consulting firm because it was already paid for the work under an express agreement
• dismissing unjust enrichment claims because the plaintiffs did “not even allege that they purchased their vehicles from Defendant or one of Defendant’s dealers,” and adding that the plaintiffs “fail[ed] to show any way in which their money transferred from their own pockets to [the defendant's.”
• “Quantum meruit will not be awarded when there is an express agreement.” (citing Murphy v. Haws & Burke, 344 A.2d 543, 546 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975))
• “Quantum meruit will not be awarded when there is an express agreement.” (citing Murphy v. Haws & Burke, 344 A.2d 543, 546 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1975))
• “a contract implied in law imposes a duty, not as a result of any agreement, whether express or implied, but in spite of the absence of an agreement when one party receives an unjust enrichment at the expense of another”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).