Finally, as to plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment, we note the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to provide the remedy of restitution only when the aggrieved party has no adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs have a legal remedy against those parties and, in fact, have pursued that remedy to a successful conclusion, reaching a substantial settlement apparently satisfactory to them. Thus, their legal remedy was adequate and the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment is not available to them. See Jones Cooling, and Heatinq, -Inc. 99 N.C. App.
Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment is affirmed.
Plaintiffs also assign error to the entry of summary judgment dismissing their remaining claims for fraud, securities law violations, and negligent misrepresentation against defendants Lingafelt. As we have determined as a matter of law that no such agency relationship existed with respect to the transactions at issue here, defendants Lingafelt cannot be held vicariously liable for any wrongdoing on Bradshaw's part. Lingafelt on these claims is affirmed.