MBE Rules · Contracts
Quasi-contract / unjust enrichment
The rule
Where no enforceable contract exists, a plaintiff may recover the reasonable value of services or goods conferred on the defendant if (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit, (2) the defendant knew of the benefit, and (3) the defendant's retention of the benefit without payment would be unjust.
In plain English
If someone gives you a benefit, like services or goods, without a contract, you might still have to pay if it would be unfair for you to keep it for free.
Worked example
A landscaper mistakenly mows the wrong lawn, and the homeowner watches without stopping him. The homeowner may have to pay for the service since they knowingly accepted the benefit.
Memory hook
Benefit bestowed, bill due. No contract needed if services were given, known, and fairness demands payment.
The trap
Students think: Any benefit leads to recovery. Wrong, because the benefit must be unjustly retained. The actual test is no contract + unjust enrichment.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: services rendered without a contract, defendant acknowledges benefit. Trap: students miss the 'unjust' element, assuming benefit alone suffices.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.