Unformatted text preview: and defendant’s retention of that benefit without compensating the plaintiff would be unfair. Rational: Because there was no liquidation or a clause that stated what was to be done in case a party backed out of the contract, the restitution applies. Although the buyer put up a deposit as a money down on a property, the seller, through restitution, was only allowed to keep the amount he was injured for, and taking more than the amount would violate the idea of restitution. They had to refund the portion of the deposit to the buyer, that the sellers wasn’t harmed for. Holding: The USSC held that, through restitution, the sellers can only keep the amount of money that they were damaged for, from the buyers. Anymore, would unjustly enriched the seller. A breacher of the contract can also use the doctrine of restitution. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document
- Fall '11
- Contract Law, Restitution, deposit, sellers