The case arose against the background of the worldwide shortage of disposable gloves during the Covid-19 pandemic. D was appointed as a Thai manufacturer’s official representative and reseller of SKYMED nitrile gloves that the latter manufactured. D would in turn seek buyers of the gloves; and F was one such direct buyer which was under a contractual obligation to pay a deposit amounting to 30 per cent of the total purchase price to D. F sold 30 million boxes of the gloves to I, which sold on a portion to P. Pursuant to the contract between I and F, I was required to transfer 30 per cent of the purchase price to D. Pursuant to the contract between P and I, P was required to pay a 30 per cent deposit into D’s bank account, which P did accordingly. P claimed that thereafter no word was heard from D, F or I and P did not receive any gloves. P commenced action against D, alleging, amongst other things, that there was a failure of consideration justifying restitution for the monies paid to D.

Decision: The unjust enrichment claim failed. P had no contractual relation with D; 
instead it had a subsisting and valid contract with I, which it could not “sidestep”. 
P’s recourse was to sue I in contract.

Held: A claim in unjust enrichment against the defendant would be denied if it would undermine the contractual allocation of risks in a contract entered into between the defendant and a third party which forms the legal basis for the defendant to retain the benefit received.

Unjust enrichment if the value of the property put up for security is far higher than the loan sums

R1 granted loans to A pursuant to two loan agreements under which A had transferred three plots of land to R2 and five plots of land to R3 as securities. The properties were