100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.
Why does the court see this case as involving a quasi-contract as opposed to an actual contract? The court views the Reisenfeld & Company v. The Network Group Inc. case as involving a quasi-contract, because BSI benefited from the work Reisenfeld was doing and they were also aware of it. Network was contracted by BSI, but Network was also in a commission agreement with Reisenfeld. BSI subleased two stores to Dick's Clothing and Sporting Goods, but Reisenfeld did not receive his commission. What other case law does the court rely on in finding precedent/support for compensating Reisenfeld? The Ohio Court of Appeals cases support the proposition that, in the contractor/subcontractor context, when the subcontractor is not paid by the contractor and the owner has not paid the contractor for the aspect of the job at issue, the subcontractor can look to the owner for payment under a theory of unjust enrichment. Also, another Ohio case supports the proposition that nonpayment by the owner would make payment on an unjust enrichment theory appropriate.