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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (July 2021 - April 2022)

handle is hein.ali/resndrn0015 and id is 1 raw text is: RESTITUTION 2D Work on the Restatement Second of Restitution was suspended after the publication of two Tentative Drafts in 1983 and 1984. Generally Md.Spec.App.2021. Cit. generally in treatise cit. in ftn. Landlord brought, among other things, a claim for unjust enrichment against illegal occupants of premises, alleging that tenant improperly permitted defendants to make use of the premises without paying rent to plaintiff. The trial court entered judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff did not have a claim for unjust enrichment against defendants, because the fact that tenant conferred a benefit onto defendants did not necessarily mean that defendants' enrichment was unjust. The court noted that it drew a modern iteration of this doctrine from the Restatement Third of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, which served as a successor to the Restatement Second of Restitution. Clark Office Building, LLC v. MCM Capital Partners, LLLP, 245 A.3d 186, 196. CHAPTER 1. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF RESTITUTION § 1. The General Principle: Unjust Enrichment Md.Spec.App.2021. Quot. in sup. (quoting § 1 of T.D. No. 1, 1983). Landlord brought, among other things, a claim for unjust enrichment against illegal occupants of premises, alleging that tenant improperly permitted defendants to make use of the premises without paying rent to plaintiff. The trial court entered judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff did not have a claim for unjust enrichment against defendants, because the fact that tenant conferred a benefit onto defendants did not necessarily mean that defendants' enrichment was unjust. The court quoted Restatement Second of Restitution § 1 in defining the elements of an unjust-enrichment claim, and explained that plaintiff's relief for benefits received by defendants was available through taking legal action against tenant. Clark Office Building, LLC v. MCM Capital Partners, LLLP, 245 A.3d 186, 196. COPYRIGHT ©2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America E ALAW INSTITUTE For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.