About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (April 2023 - August 2023)

handle is hein.ali/relwrstn0076 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2023 Citations RESTITUTION Generally D.N.M.2021. Cit. generally in ftn. Business-development consultant who was hired to increase the profitability of a cattle ranch in order to attract potential buyers sued owner of the ranch, alleging that owner breached his promise to pay a finder's fee to consultant upon the sale of the ranch. After a bench trial, this court granted judgment for consultant and awarded him damages against owner, holding that owner breached a valid contract between the parties by failing to pay consultant a percentage of the sale price of the ranch. As to consultant's unjust-enrichment claim, the court cited Restatement of Restitution § 1 in noting that quasi-contractual remedies were not to be created when, as here, there was an express contract, and that the New Mexico Supreme Court had relied upon the Restatement of Restitution in analyzing unjust-enrichment claims. Tyler Group Partners, LLC v. Madera, 564 F.Supp.3d 944, 1006. PART I. THE RIGHT TO RESTITUTION (QUASI CONTRACTS AND KINDRED EQUITABLE RELIEF) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY MATTERS TOPIC 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES § 1. Unjust Enrichment C.A.5, 2022. Quot. in sup.; com. (b) cit. in sup. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought a civil enforcement action against operator of energy companies, alleging, inter alia, that defendant should disgorge profits obtained from numerous violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The district court ordered disgorgement. This court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by ordering defendant to pay disgorgement, because defendant sold investments using misleading offering materials, and plaintiff identified the specific transaction that unjustly enriched defendant. Citing Restatement of Restitution § 1, the court observed that unjust enrichment was the basis of all restitution, and plaintiff met its burden to prove that its requested disgorgement amount represented the amount of advantage defendant obtained through wrongdoing. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hallam, 42 F.4th 316, 332, 341. D.N.M.2021. Quot. in sup., cit. in ftn., cit. in case cit. in ftn. Business-development consultant who was hired to increase the profitability of a cattle ranch in order to attract potential buyers sued owner of the ranch, alleging that owner breached his promise to pay a finder's fee to consultant upon the sale of the COPYRIGHT C2023 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.