Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment
Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment says that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at anothes expense - American University v. Forbes, 88 N.H. 17, 183 A. 860, 862.
Under this doctrine a defendant has something of value at the plaintiff's expense under circumstances which impose a legal duty of restitution. - Herrmann v. Gleason, C.C.A.Mich., 126 F.2d 936, 940
Doctrine permits recovery in certain instances where person has received from another a benefit retention of which would be unjust. - Seekins v. King, 66 R.I. 105, 17 A.2d 869, 871, 134 A.L.R. 1060.
Doctrine is not contractual but is equitable in nature. - State v. Martin, 59 Ariz. 438, 130 P.2d 48, 52.
"Unjust enrichment" of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another. - Hummel v. Hummel, 133 Ohio St. 520, 14 N.E.2d 923, 927.
One who has conferred a benefit upon another solely because of a basic mistake of fact induced by a nondisclosure is entitled to restitution on above doctrine. - Conkling's Estate v. Champlin, 193 Okl. 79, 141 P.2d 569, 570.
A Tax illegally levied should be refunded. - New India Industries vs Union of India (AIR 1990 Bom 239)