92%(12)11 out of 12 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.
Show Me My Money (Reisenfeld & Company v. The Network Group Inc., p. 321)Why does the court see this case as involving a quasi-contract as opposed to an actual contract? Reisenfeld argues on appeal that the district court erred in holding that Reisenfeld could not sue BSI for payment of a broker's commission on either a quasi-contract or a third-party beneficiary theory. The judge agreed with the trial court that Reisenfeld can not sue BSI on a third-party beneficiary theory; however, Reisenfeld can sue on a quasi-contract theory. Accordingly, to the trial court's decision with respect to Reisenfeld's third-party beneficiary claim but vacate and remand the decision with respect to the quasi-contract claim. A contract implied-in-law or “quasi-contract” is not a true contract, but instead a liability imposed by courts in order to prevent unjust enrichment.There are three elements for a quasi-contract claim:There must be: (1) a benefit conferred by the