Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): pleads two counts of unjust enrichment, one on a contract-based theory and the other on a tort fraud theory. He correctly argues that by virtue of his allegation that he worked above the agreed-upon hours set forth in his employment contract, he can state a quasi-contract claim and seek an award for unjust enrichment because the additional hours worked' were not covered by an express contract. See, e.g., Buenaventura v. Champion Drywall, Inc., 803 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1219 (D.Nev.2011) (allowing unjust enrichment claim based on failure to provide adequate compensation); McCullough v. Lennar Corp., No. 09-CV-1808-WQH-NLS, 2009 WL 3805305, at *6 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 10, 2009) (same); United States ex. Falco Constr. Corp. v. Summit Gen. Contracting Corp., 760 F.Supp. 1004, 1011 (E.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>). Risinger’s unjust enrichment claim thus seeks 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a provision making all payments to subcontractor by  contractor expressly contingent upon payment for the work by contractor from owner is a payifpaid clause under texas law (B) holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor (C) holding that subcontractor can recover in quasicontract from contractor for work not encompassed in the agreement between the two (D) holding that the owner could maintain a 93a claim against the subcontractor where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner was the thirdparty beneficiary of the contract between the general contractor and the subcontractor (E) holding that subcontractor could recover damages from general contractor for delay in performance under state law
Output (English): holding that where contract between contractor and subcontractor allowed subcontractor to recover if contractor recovered contractor was not barred from bringing suit on behalf of subcontractor