In the case of Reisenfeld & Company v. Network Group, Reisenfeld & Company appeals a grant initially made in favor of Builders Square, Inc. and K. Mart Corporation in which they claim a breach of contract under the law of Ohio. According to Reisenfeld, the district court erred by ruling that Reisenfeld could not sue BSI for the payment of commission to the broker on either a third party beneficiary deal or quasi-contract. Upon the review, the court agrees with the trial court that Reisenfeld could not sue BSI by third-party beneficiary theory. However, the court finds that Reisenfeld can sue BSI based on quasi-contract theory.
Also, the court affirms the decision by the trial court to remand the decision with regards to the quasi-contract claims. The court finds the case as involving quasi-contract as opposed to actual contract because the contract was a liability imposed by the court to help prevent unjust enrichment and not a real bargain. As explained in the critical treatise, quasi-contractual responsibility is one created by law for justice and without any expression of assent and often against an expression of dissent.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The court adopts the reasoning of Washington State Case, which ruled that a benefited third party cannot be liable under the theory of unjust enrichment when there is no permission to the contract. Accordingly, the court holds that BSI could not be sued under unfair enrichment theory where Reisenfeld had not misbehaved. The decision did not, however, appear to follow the guideline of the golden rule. The rule in the contractor/subcontractor cases is that an action for unjust enrichment does not in any way lie against the owner in the absence of evidence if the owner misleads the detriment of the subcontractor.
