Insulation Contracting & Supply v. Kravco, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that it \is not the pattern or custom and usage within the building trade\ for separate parties within \the sequential chain of payment in the construction industry\ to have rights as third-party beneficiaries
• denying claim by sub-sub-eontractor against general contractor for unjust enrichment, citing Stokes, supra, with approval
• denying similar reimbursement in a claim by a sub-subcontractor against the prime contractor after the subcontractor for whom the plaintiff had performed defaulted
• “Plaintiff may not recover against defendants on the theory of unjust enrichment, restitution or quasi-contract.”
• \Restitution and unjust enrichment are both quasi-contractual in nature.\ (italicization omitted)
• “[i]f the party conferring a benefit does so pursuant to a contract with a third party, then non-performance by the other party to the contract does not entitle the party conferring the benefit to repayment from the recipient on a theory of restitution or unjust enrichment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).