XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX BB & T Arbitration Administrator Legal Department XXXX , XXXX XXXX RE : Notice of intent to enter into dispute by mediation administered by the XXXX under its Commercial Mediation Procedures before resorting to arbitration, litigation, or some other dispute resolution procedure. 


Upon information and belief BB & T has determined to close my XXXX cash back visa card account # XXXX. I demand the full amount ( {$2000.00} ) rewards balance due to vest on the one year anniversary of the card opening. These cash back rewards funds were earned and rightfully owed to me. 
It is common knowledge in contract law that once an offer has been accepted it may not be revoked. The cash back rewards funds in question were earned and thus rightfully owed to me. 

The account limitation and closure appears to be an action taken as direct retaliation for my insistence that BB & T honor their promotional agreement. Denial of full payment on the outstanding cash back rewards balance related to the promotional offer is ill advised, unethical and entirely unacceptable behavior which will not be tolerated. 

BB & T is within it 's rights to close my accounts however to allow me to complete all of my responsibilities with respect to the promotional offer and then arbitrarily seek to avoid payment on a previously earned cash rewards balance via forfeiture is the definition of unjust enrichment as I have already accepted the offer, assented to the agreement and conferred a benefit on BB & T and have a reasonable expectation to be paid. I have a legal right to recover the unpaid rewards balance under the quantum meruit doctrine of quasi contract recovery. 

A general equitable principle that no person should be allowed to profit at another 's expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. 

Unjust enrichment has three elements. First, the plaintiff must have provided the defendant with something of value while expecting compensation in return. Second, the defendant must have acknowledged, accepted, and benefited from whatever the plaintiff provided. Third, the plaintiff must show that it would be inequitable or unconscionable for the defendant to enjoy the benefit of the plaintiff 's actions without paying for it. 

The doctrine of Quasi-contract : is an equitable remedy available to prevent one party from being unjustly enriched at the other party 's expense. Also known as recovery under quantum meruit ( something for something ). 

As a general principle, equity requires that when one party confers something of value or other benefit, the other party must pay a reasonable value ( in money or other valuable goods or services ) for it. 

Quasi-contractual recovery is particularly useful when one party has partially performed under a contract that subsequently becomes unenforceable. 

The party seeking to recover in quasi-contract must show that : ( 1 ) A benefit was conferred on the other party ; ( 2 ) The conferring party expected to be paid or otherwise compensated for the benefit conferred ; ( 3 ) The conferring party did not voluntarily confer benefits for which he or she would not be paid ; and ( 4 ) Retaining the benefit without paying for it would unjustly enrich the party receiving the benefit.