What results from a situation of unjust enrichment in contract law?

In cases of unjust enrichment, a quasi-contract may be imposed by a court to address the situation where one party benefits at the expense of another in a manner that is considered unjust. Unjust enrichment occurs when one individual receives a benefit or enrichment without giving a corresponding value in return, and it would be unfair to allow that benefit to remain with them without compensation.

Quasi-contracts are not actual contracts but rather legal constructs that courts use to enforce an obligation to prevent unjust enrichment. They arise to ensure that fairness prevails, even in the absence of a formal agreement between the parties. The court steps in to create a remedy, often requiring the enriched party to compensate the other for the value of the benefit they received. This approach emphasizes the principles of equity and justice over strict contractual requirements.

The other options do not accurately describe the legal consequences of unjust enrichment. For example, automatically creating a legally binding agreement or forming a legal contract with full intent implies an established mutual understanding and consent, which is not present in cases of unjust enrichment. Moreover, while parties may face liability for damages under other circumstances, unjust enrichment specifically leads to the imposition of a quasi-contract to restore balance, rather than a direct monetary penalty or damages.