What three factors does a court consider for restitutionary recovery in a quasi-contract situation?

• A. The plaintiff has conferred a measurable benefit on the defendant; the plaintiff acted without gratuitous intent; and it would be unfair to let the defendant retain the benefit because either (i) opportunity to decline accepted or (ii) reasonable excuse.
• B. The defendant caused harm; the plaintiff suffered a loss; the court must award punitive damages.
• C. A breach occurred; the non-breaching party can sue for contract damages.
• D. The contract was terminated; the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy.

Answer: (A)

Restitutionary recovery in a quasi-contract situation hinges on preventing unjust enrichment when there’s no enforceable contract. The court looks for three elements. First, the plaintiff must have conferred a measurable benefit on the defendant—something of value actually transferred. Second, the plaintiff must not have acted gratuitously; there has to be an expectation that payment is owed, not a pure gift. Third, it would be unfair to let the defendant retain the benefit, which is shown either because the recipient had an opportunity to decline the benefit but accepted it anyway or because there’s a reasonable excuse for accepting. When all three are present, the plaintiff can recover the value of the benefit.

The other options don’t fit because they describe different remedies or scenarios: damages for breach of contract typically require a contract and aim to compensate rather than prevent unjust enrichment; punitive damages address wrongs beyond breach; and statements about termination with no remedy reflect contract termination rather than restitution for unjust enrichment.