Shopping Cart (0) items Sign In

Construction Claims Monthly - Devoted exclusively to the problems of construction contracting since 1963

‹ Prev article: 

Supplier Doesn?t Unjustly Enrich A 'Remote? Contractor

Monday, May 02, 2011 05:59 am


Unjust Enrichment - Miller Act

United States f/u/b/o Hajoca Corp. v. Assoc. Mechanical, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12148 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2011)

An unpaid supplier couldn?t recover under an expired payment bond, but it may have a valid unjust enrichment claim against the prime contractor who procured that bond.

Hajoca Corporation (Hajoca) provided nearly $30,000 worth of plumbing supplies to a U.S. Air Force project in Nevada under a subcontract with Associated Mechanical, Inc. (Associated). Associated paid Hajoca only half the invoiced amount. Hajoca went after the project?s prime contractor, Amerind Builders, LLC (Amerind), under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. That tactic just might work.

Unjust enrichment applies "where there is no legal contract but where the person sought to be charged is in possession of money or property which in good conscience and justice he should not retain but should deliver to an [...]

› Next article: 
Sign up now for Construction Claims Monthly Online! Your own virtual help desk of must-have techniques, tutorials, and how-to articles.
Join Now Construction Claims Monthly! Close