Opinion ID: 2639311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents on the claims of breach of contract, violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment

Text: French claims that the transaction created a `quasi-contract' between the parties that required all parties to be truthful to one another. Further, she argues that the respondents were unjustly enriched as a result of the transaction and that equity requires that the respondents not be allowed to retain the benefits of the transaction. A. Breach Of Contract And Violation Of The Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing French alleges that the realtors breached a contract and violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. She admits, however, that she did not have a contract with the Knapps, and therefore could not have one with the realtors who are parties to this action. The realtor who represented her is not a party to this action. The district court dismissed this claim on these grounds. French's only contract was with the Oxfords, who are not parties to this lawsuit. Because there was no contract with French, the respondents could not have breached one. Further, there must be a contract in order for the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to apply. Since there was no contract with the respondents, there can be no violation of the implied covenant. B. Unjust Enrichment French argues that her relationship with the parties gives rise to a quasi-contract and that the respondents have been unjustly enriched as a result of this transaction. This Court has held that: in order to establish the prima facie case for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must show that there was: (1) a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) appreciation by the defendant of such benefit; and (3) acceptance of the benefit under circumstances that would be inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without payment to the plaintiff of the value thereof. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper, 133 Idaho 82, 88, 982 P.2d 917, 923 (1999) (citing Curtis v. Becker, 130 Idaho 378, 382, 941 P.2d 350, 354 (Ct.App.1997)). The district court held that it would not be inequitable for the respondents to retain any benefits conferred upon them because French was represented by a real estate agent during the transaction at issue and French could not show that she justifiably relied on any alleged misrepresentations made during the transaction. The only respondent that arguably retained a benefit from French in this case is Montemayer. Sbicca did not receive a commission from the sale, and the money received by the Knapps was from the sale to the Oxfords. The Langs have not been unjustly enriched; they were never a party to this transaction and had no contact with French until they erected the gate over their property. The benefit that Montemayer arguably retained was the commission that he received as a result of the sale. The question is whether it is equitable to allow him to keep his commission. The district court's reasoning is persuasiveall parties to this transaction were represented by real estate agents, and all parties were given the opportunity to examine the easement documents. The record indicates that French's decision to purchase the property was based in large part on her examination of the documents. There is no indication that any party had unequal bargaining power or that the transaction was inherently unfair.