In restitutionary recovery under a quasi-contract, which of the following is NOT a required factor?

• A. The existence of a prior contract between the parties.
• B. The plaintiff conferred a measurable benefit on the defendant.
• C. The plaintiff acted without gratuitous intent.
• D. It would be unfair to let the defendant retain the benefit because either the defendant had the opportunity to decline the benefit but knowingly accepted it, or the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for not giving such opportunity.

Answer: (A)

Quasi-contract restitution is about preventing unjust enrichment, not enforcing a contract. Because of that, having a prior contract between the parties is not required for recovery. What matters is that the plaintiff conferred a measurable benefit on the defendant and that it would be unfair for the defendant to retain that benefit without paying. This unfairness is typically shown when the defendant had the opportunity to decline the benefit but knowingly accepted it, or when the plaintiff had a reasonable excuse for not offering such an opportunity. The point is to prevent the defendant from being unjustly enriched, even in the absence of a contract.