_ /10
CHAPTER ____ CASE ____
_ /1
Parties
Digger Excavation Co v Township of Langley
_ /2
Issue
-
Can Digger Excavation Co. claim unjust enrichment?
_ /2
Law
-
Expectation damages = expected benefits - expected costs
If benefits < costs, then plaintiff cannot claim expectation damages
-
Reliance damages are the value of resources wasted under contract
Reliance denied to extent contract was unprofitable -
Unjust enrichment has to meet 3 requirements:
1.
enrichment to defendant
2.
corresponding deprivation to plaintiff
3.
absence of juristic reason for enrichment
_ /3
Analysis
-
Because Digger did not expect to earn a profit under the contract with the Township of Langley, they cannot recover any expectation damages. -
Despite Digger investing $6 million in half of the project, they can only claim reliance damages if the contract was not unprofitable. The completed contract would have caused a loss of $8 million, so Digger will not recover any reliance damages.
-
Since the contract has been discharged by the Township’s breach of condition, Digger could claim restitution for unjust enrichment. 1.
Digger’s services were valued at $6 million, which is the benefit that the Township received.
2.
Digger lost $4 million (provided services of $6 million - received payment only of
$2 million)
3.
There is an absence of any juristic reason for the enrichment. Although the services were rendered according to the contract, Digger discharged it based on the Town’s breach. Digger is therefore entitled to get back what it gave to the Township (without reference to the price contained in the contract): $4 million.
_ /2
Remedy
-
Digger is entitled to unjust enrichment claim of $4 million
-
Digger is entitled to court costs
