Mr. George,
There are a lot of great points made in your post and you touched on many different subjects. One subject that caught my particular interest is the subject of restitution. Without a legal justification to retain a benefit (which was unjustly acquired), where the retention of that benefit places the burden of bearing the loss on the grantor (or claimant) , the law provides the remedy of restitution designed to restore something or its value. [1] Section §344(c), Restatement 2nd, describes the purpose of a remedy, as something that serves to protect the party’s interest in having a benefit restored to him, which was conferred to the other party.” [2] While this section tells us about restitution or restoral of a benefit conferred, it doesn’t provide the context of why one who conferred a benefit would then seek restitution. The answer to this question is contained in sections §344(a) and (b) which deals with expectation interests and reliance interests, respectively. [3] The language in those two sections infers that the position or value held by party “A” should not, without just cause, give right to party “B” to interfere with “A” right to enjoy that position. Looking at many of the different interests such as expectation interests, reliance interests, lost volume interests and diminution in value, it is clear that the remedies which can be invoked to protect the majority of interests are born out of a breach of contract. [4] Considering this fact, we can see how a contract implied in law (Quasi-Contract) is important in claims where express contract terms have not been established. [5]
[1] Brian A. Blum, Examples & Explanations: Contracts 269 (6 ed. 2013).
[2] Steven J. Burton, Contract Law 279 (2014).
[3] Id.
[4] Id. at 281
[5] Blum, 275.