The defendant moved to dismiss, and a hearing on the merits was held. The court dismissed the claim of misrepresentation and found no violation of the Consumer Protection Act. It did, however, enter judgment for the plaintiff on his unjust enrichment claim. The defendant first contends that the district court erred in granting the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim. Defendant further argues that the commissions, or fees, were at a reduced rate.
Unjust enrichment is an equitable as opposed to a legal concept.
In order to recover the Plaintiff must show that restitution should be made. The theory is based on the concept that fairness requires a restitution to the injured party. The court reached this conclusion by finding that the agreement for compensation between the plaintiff and defendant was void ab initio . As such, the defendant would not be allowed to sue for unpaid commissions, and the district court reasoned that it should not be allowed to keep any previously collected commissions either. A trial court must determine whether the facts and equities of a particular case warranted a remedy in restitution.