It is appropriate, therefore, to treat the resulting obligations as an enforceable quasi-contract. That said, we must consider the parameters of that contract. The ordinance clearly provides that any citizen seeking to build a new home in the City would have to pay, in advance, a pro-rata share of the costs of the providing of additional water and sewerage capacity. These costs reflect, of necessity, an economy of scale. The City could not bend and shape its plans according to the whim of each new resident.
Individual plans allow for more flexibility.
The ordinance made no mention of refunds in the event the developer simply changed his mind. The City made long-term plans with the understanding that it would be obligated to provide additional water and sewerage service to McNair, his successors in interest, and everyone else who paid the impact fee. Likewise, Texas does not require repayment of money had and received unless equity and good conscience demand it. We perceive no basis for finding the City's retention of McNair's payment unfair. The City has provided what it promised.