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.

The courts relied on contractors/subcontractor’s case law.

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.

313).

The Golden Rule states “Do unto others as you would have done to you.” The court system followed the Golden Rules they looked at the Ohio law and said that it would be unjust for BSI to retain the benefits without paying Rosenfeld's for it. However, BSI was engaged in criminal actions of the shareholders of Networks, it was unethical for BSI to keep the benefits since Reisenfeld’s worked the deals.

A good example of implied-in-fact or quasi-contract if you were sitting at your home and a delivery man showed up with a pizza just the way you like it all your favorite fixing. On top of getting a delicious pizza, the delivery person did not charge you. By excepting that free pizza that was not intended for you by the court's standards become unjustly enriched. Meaning you profited at the expense of another without trying to make restitution.

Best regards,
Thomas Pavlik