Morris Pumps v. Centerline Piping, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a general contractor was unjustly enriched when it retained materials supplied by a subcontractor’s supplier but paid no one for them
• holding that a general contractor was unjustly enriched when it retained materials supplied by a subcontractor’s supplier but paid no one for them
• holding that “an implied contract may not be found if there is an express contract between the same parties on the same subject matter” (quoting 42 C.J.S., Implied and Constructive Contracts, § 34, p. 33)
• holding that “an implied contract may not be found if there is an express contract between the same parties on the same subject matter” (quoting 42 C.J.S., Implied and Constructive Contracts, § 34, p. 33)
• holding that “an implied contract may not be found if there is an express contract between the same parties on the same subject matter” (quoting 42 C.J.S., Implied and Constructive Contracts, § 34, p. 33)
• explaining that Michigan law does not permit “simultaneous and alternative claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment” against the same defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).