Georgia Tile Distributors, Inc. v. Zumpano Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that unjust enrichment theory of recovery is available only when there is no valid contract on which plaintiff could base recovery
• “there is no inherent inconsistency in concluding that no contractual agreement was reached but one party has benefited at the expense of another who must in fairness be compensated”
• \there is no inherent inconsistency in concluding that no contractual agreement was reached but one party has benefited at the expense of another who must in fairness be compensated\
• unjust enrichment theory applies when no legal contract exists
• “The theory of unjust enrichment applies when as a matter of fact there is no legal contract, but where the party sought to be charged has been conferred a benefit by the party contending an unjust enrichment which the benefitted party equitably ought to return or compensate for.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).