The cases this year are a reminder the law of restitution and unjust enrichment varies a great deal across the US. The issue in O’Malley v Adams (§133) is whether Illinois recognises an independent cause of action for unjust enrichment. Meanwhile, Cape v Och-Ziff (§122), Chiquita v Port Everglades Terminal (§123) and Pauwels v Deloitte (§134) illustrate that in some states that do recognise an independent and general cause of action for unjust enrichment, the claim is fettered by a requirement that the plaintiff provide a “direct” benefit to the defendant.

A handful of cases address claims that a contract precludes a possible unjust enrichment claim (or, as R3RUE put the point, “displaces inquiry into unjust enrichment”). Beldock v VWSD (§121) provides a lucid statement of general principles, drawing at length on R3RUE. The decision is at an early stage, so there is no opportunity to apply the principles. Airport Fuel Services v Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission (§119) (holding over in breach of a lease) and Safeway v WY Plaza (§136) (mistaken payment) are easy cases for finding a claim not to be precluded, which the courts do. Pauwels v Deloitte (§134) is a hard case that involves an issue of significant importance in the general area of trade secret law. Sugarman & Sugarman v Shapiro (§143) shows that sometimes this issue can be resolved as a matter of implication.

119. Airport Fuel Services Inc v Martha’s Vineyard Airport Commission (2023) 212 NE 3d 262 (Mass. App. Ct)

Disgorgement—profit from holdover tenancy—when contract displaces inquiry into unjust enrichment

AFS built and operated a gas station, service centre and car wash on property it leased from MVAC under a 20-year lease that terminated on 9 March 2017. AFS’s bid for a successor was rejected because another bidder, Depot Corner, offered a higher rent. MVAC notified AFS of this when it made the decision, on 9 March, while it agreed to extend the lease to 15 May to enable AFS to sell or remove the improvements, rights given to AFS by the lease. AFS filed a lawsuit claiming that MVAC had failed to follow statutory