Under common law, the principles ofequity have always demanded the recognition of the right of individuals to seek recovery under the theory of unjust enrichment. Recovery under this doctrine is so deeply embedded into Western Society that it continues to be a core element in legal education and is codified in the Restatement Third of Contracts. Despite this rich tradition, an alarming divergence in decisions among California courts is deteriorating unjust enrichment as an independent cause- of-action, leaving many Californians who have been taken advantage of, unprotected. This Article examines the historical underpinnings of unjust enrichment and the confusion among California courts surrounding the doctrine. To resolve this confusion and provide a fair sense of justice, the California Supreme Court must interject in the discussion to solidify unjust enrichment as a stand-alone cause-of-action.
Douglas L. Johnson and Neville L. Johnson,
What Happened to Unjust Enrichment in California - The Deterioration of Equity in the California Courts,
44 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 277
Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol44/iss1/11