Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment still has various applications in Mississippi law.  Here is the general law that is applicable. Unjust enrichment “applies to situations where there is no legal contract and ‘the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to another.’” Miss. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Pac. Chlorine, Inc., 100 So. 3d 432, 442 (Miss. 2012) (quoting Powell v. Campbell, 912 So. 2d 978, 982 (Miss. 2005)).  In these circumstances, equity imposes “a duty to refund the money or the use value of the property to the person to whom in good conscience it ought to belong.” Estate of Johnson v. Adkins, 513 So. 2d 922, 926 (Miss. 1987).  The amount of recovery for unjust enrichment is “that to which the claimant is equitably entitled.”  Id.

Unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy closely associated with "implied

contracts" and trusts. In Hans v. Hans, 482 So.2d 1117 (Miss. 1986), the Court said:

“The doctrine of unjust enrichment or recovery in quasicontract applies to situations where there is no legal contract but where the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to another, the courts imposing a duty to refund the money or the use value of the property to the person to whom in good conscience it ought to belong.”

482 So.2d at 1122. And, in Magnolia Federal Savings & Loan v. Randal Craft

Realty, 342 So.2d 1308 (Miss. 1977):

“[t]he terms unjust enrichment and restitution are modern designation for the doctrine of quasi-contracts and the basis for an action for unjust enrichment lies in a promise, which is implied in law, that one will pay to the person entitled thereto which in equity and good conscience is his.”

342 So.2d at 1311.