Opinion ID: 1209425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: horseshoe estates' liability

Text: The foundation of appellant's view that it cannot be held upon the theory of unjust enrichment and that it has no obligation to pay for, or even to return, any of the materials here supplied is that there is no showing Horseshoe Estates took advantage of 2M Company, Inc., nor was there any element of misconduct or fault. From a reading of appellant's brief and its contention of complete innocence and lack of knowledge that the partnership of Horseshoe Estates had a complete lack of involvement herein and bore no relation to 2M Company, Inc., this writer is in some way reminded of the couplet about the little man who wasn't there and who isn't there again today. This contention is made in face of the fact that Richard E. Shanor is one of the partners, that he signed the original contract naming Country Club of the Big Horns as owner of the property, that he signed the contract as guarantor, and that he knew of, and inspected, the work being done and property being placed on the lands of Horseshoe Estates. To say that this partnership did not have complete knowledge of all these dealings and that 2M Company, Inc. dealt alone with Shanor and Country Club of the Big Horns is not reasonable. A partnership is not so ephemeral that it is a completely removed and detached entity from the partners or their activities or representations and can have no responsibility or notice of their acts, particularly when these parties, all three, are engaged in the building of a single developed unit with a common purpose. Horseshoe Estates must be said to have had notice and knowledge of Richard E. Shanor's representation, statements, acts, activities, and knowledge, § 17-13-304, W.S. 1977, so that it knew 2M Company, Inc. was performing a contract and placing machinery and a sprinkler system upon partnership property, and that, even despite of said knowledge, Shanor, as such partner, made no attempt to stop or to advise 2M Company, Inc. that it was on Horseshoe Estates land where the equipment was being placed. From the facts before recited, we cannot say that Horseshoe Estates was not guilty of some misconduct or fault, nor do we believe that such behavior would recommend itself highly to a court sitting in equity. Without consideration, however, of the wrongful conduct of Horseshoe Estates, the partnership is forced to live with the rule that restitution lies for services or chattels placed upon lands which benefit another with his knowledge. Costanzo v. Stewart, 9 Ariz. App. 430, 453 P.2d 526, 528 (1969), citing Restatement of the Law of Restitution § 40 (1937). This case represents a rather widely recognized exception to the rule, which has been promulgated in several cases, that recovery for unjust enrichment requires an element of fraud or tortious conduct on the part of the person receiving the benefit of the work or materials furnished. Other cases require, if the purpose of unjust enrichment is to be served, that when a party receives, with full knowledge, materials or services to his benefit from an innocent furnisher of such supplies, he should be accountable therefor. The case of Gee v. Eberle, 279 Pa.Super. 101, 420 A.2d 1050 (1980), specifically holds that in a claim for unjust enrichment, proof of wrongdoing or wrongful intent is unnecessary. That case cites with approval the case of Roman Mosaic and Tile Co., Inc. v. Vollrath, 226 Pa.Super. 215, 313 A.2d 305 (1973), which sets out that to recover on a claim of unjust enrichment, it must be shown that the property was wrongfully secured or passively received. See also In re Brereton's Estate, 388 Pa. 206, 130 A.2d 453 (1957). It is hard to assume a set of facts which would more clearly make this rule applicable in the instant case. In support of appellant's contention that in order to recover under this theory it must be shown there was some misconduct or fault, Commercial Fixtures and Furnishings, Inc. v. Adams, Utah, 564 P.2d 773 (1977), is cited. This case is not factually applicable to our situation and does not hold as the appellant asserts, the holding being not that broad. It merely enunciates a narrow rule that the mere fact some third party may benefit does not sustain a claim for unjust enrichment. It is to be noted that 2M Company, Inc. does not assert its claim on this sole basis but on an entirely different set of facts. It is observed that this case involved a divided court and that the dissent may well be considered more persuasive and impressive than the views of the majority. [1]