Concrete Products Co. v. Salt Lake County

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant county had not been unjustly enriched by the plaintiffs delivery of concrete for curbs and gutters to a third-party who never paid
• holding that the defendant county had not been unjustly enriched by the plaintiffs delivery of concrete for curbs and gutters to a third-party who never paid
• explaining that on the facts of the case the third-party was not conferred a direct benefit, but “[i]nstead.. .w[ould] incur the expenses of cleaning and maintaining curbs and gutters with no resale value or intrinsic economic worth.”
• denying an unjust enrichment claim against Salt Lake County brought by a supplier who had delivered materials to a subcontractor pursuant to a contract and had not been paid by the subcontractor, after the supplier had \unsuccessfully sued the subcontractor\
• quantum meruit claim was recognized as permissible, but claim failed for lack of evidence that county was directly benefitted
• court held it was not inequitable to allow county to retain benefit received from concrete delivered by subcontractor’s supplier for development approved by county

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).