Opinion ID: 1251041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contract Implied at Law

Text: The trial court held only that no express loan existed, but did not further describe the nature of the transfer. When the trial court did not find an express loan contract between Pijan and Hill, [1] but did not find that the transfer was a gift, [2] it should have considered possible recovery under an implied-contract theory. A contract implied at law permits the court to apply an equitable remedy while recognizing it is an obligation imposed by law to do justice even though it is clear that no promise was ever made. Gate City S. & L. Ass'n v. International Bus. Mach. Corp., 213 N.W.2d 888 (N.D.1973). The existence and terms of an obligation are manifested by conduct that can be both acts and words. NDCC § 9-06-01. Contracts implied in law are fictions of the law, actually not contracts, created on principles of unjust enrichment and presumption of performance of duty, without regard to the assent of the parties. 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 6 (1963). The essence of an implied-at-law contract is the receipt of a benefit by a decedent during his life which it would be inequitable for the decedent to have retained without payment. If it would be inequitable for the decedent to retain the benefit, the estate is said to be unjustly enriched. Midland Diesel Serv. & Engine v. Sivertson, 307 N.W.2d 555 (N.D.1981). Unjust enrichment is a broad, equitable doctrine which rests upon quasi or constructive contracts implied by law to prevent a person from unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of another. Cavalier County Memorial Hosp. Ass'n v. Kartes, 343 N.W.2d 781 (N.D.1984). The doctrine serves as a basis for requiring restitution of benefits conferred in the absence of an express contract. D.C. Trautman Co. v. Fargo Excavating Co., 380 N.W.2d 644 (N.D.1986). To recover under a theory of unjust enrichment, one must prove five elements: (1) an enrichment; (2) an impoverishment; (3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; (4) absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment; and (5) an absence of a remedy provided by law. A & A Metal Bldgs. v. I  S, Inc., 274 N.W.2d 183 (N.D.1978). A trial court's finding that a party has or has not been unjustly enriched is fully reviewable as a matter of law by this court. Midland Diesel, supra ; Rule 52(a), NDRCivP. The trial court did not consider the applicability of this doctrine to this case. If, as the trial court found, there was not an express oral agreement between the parties, the court should have considered the possibility of an implied contract to determine if Pijan was entitled to relief as she was left without an adequate remedy at law. Compare, D.C. Trautman, supra, at 646 [the trial court found that Trautman had an oral agreement with Fargo Excavating.... Accordingly, Trautman had an adequate remedy at law ... which precludes alternative equitable relief]. When a court is asked to consider an equitable remedy, it must look to, among other things, the adequacy of a legal remedy. A fundamental principle of equity is that a party is not entitled to equitable relief if there is a remedy provided by law which is equally adjusted to rendering complete justice. In other words, the equitable remedy must be better adjusted to rendering complete justice than the legal remedy. [3] The legal remedy in Pijan's case is inadequate if no recovery for damages may be had, for if no express contract is found, the legal remedy fails. An equitable remedy would therefore be better adjusted to rendering complete justice. Alternatively then, Pijan is allowed to turn to equity. The trial court should have discussed the applicability of equitable remedies in general and from there the specific requirements for recovery under unjust enrichment following the above noted five points.