Est1 Task 2

4-1 Discussion Response
The company Builder Square, Inc. was in the market to sell, subletting, or leasing vacant K-mart stores, in-turn found Network Group to carry out this process throughout the Ohio area. A deal was struck that Reisenfeld’s with the company Network that they would receive $1 per square foot for a store that was subleased totaling $260,320 in commissions. Unfortunately, Network’s sole shareholder was defrauding BSI in various ways. As a result, that Reisenfeld’s was left high and dry, with no money from the commission. After having a suit brought against Reisenfeld’s, and BSI stated that under restitution (unjust enrichment). Under Ohio law, there are three elements for quasi-contract claim. There must be (1) a benefit conferred by the plaintiff upon the defendant; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; (3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it would be unjust to do without payment (Kubasek, 2015, p. 313). It is the third one that the disagreement was based on was having the problem with; whether it would be unjust for BSI to retain the benefit it received without paying Reisenfeld’s for it. The courts ruled that Reisenfeld’s may seek payment from BSI under quasi-contract theory this in fact overruled the trial court’s judgment.

States that when the subcontractor is not paid by the contractor and the owner has not paid the contractor for the job. It is in the legal right for the subcontractor to look for the owner for payment under unjust enrichment payment (Kubasek, 2015, p.