Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): misrepresentation); Church of Scientology Int’l v. Time Warner, Inc., No. 92 CIV. 3024, 1998 WL 575194, at *3 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 9, 1998) (denying leave to add a li 2d 873, 438 N.Y.S.2d 960, 963-64 (citing Rosenwasser v. Amusement Enters., 88 Misc. 57, 150 N.Y.S. 561 (1917) for the rule that “fraud or illegality in inducing a tenant to make a lease is not a defense in an action for rent so long as the tenant remains in possession of the leased property” and finding that rule “controlling”). In contrast, the defrauded party who continues performance after discovering the fraud is not barred from seeking damages. See Towers Realty Corp. v. Fox, 278 A.D. 74, 103 N.Y.S.2d 437, 438 (N.Y.App.Div.1951); accord Bazzano v. L’Oreal, No. 93 Civ. 7121, 1996 WL 254873, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 1996) (<HOLDING>). Where the right to have the contract voided 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment (B) holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment (C) recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract (D) holding that prevailing party to contract dispute may recover attorneys fees either pursuant to contract or pursuant to statute (E) holding that defrauded party may either choose to void the contract and recover paid consideration on an unjust enrichment theory or affirm the contract and pursue a breach of contract remedy
Output (English): holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment