Meehan v. Cheltenham Township

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that subcontractor who has provided services and materials to an owner cannot recover for unjust enrichment if owner did not directly contract with or mislead subcontractor
• explaining that enrichment is not unjust when the benefiting party did not mislead the party seeking recovery (citing Restatement (First) of Restitution § 110 (Am. L. Inst. 1936))
• noting that unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy, requiring for recovery that there be both “(1) an enrichment, and (2) an injustice resulting if recovery for the enrichment is denied”
• \[t]he mere fact that one party benefits from the act of another is not of itself sufficient to justify restitution.\
• “The Restatement of Restitution sets forth various rules for the determination of whether the retention of a particular enrichment is unjust.”
• “[t]he mere fact that one party benefits from the act of another is not of itself sufficient to justify restitution.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).