Opinion ID: 1998635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count 1 Unjust Enrichment and Restitution

Text: Wal-Mart alleges that one of the COLI plans' fundamental purposes was to provide tax benefits to the company. The COLI plans failed in that fundamental purpose and Wal-Mart suffered substantial losses. Appellees, by contrast, profited by their involvement in promoting and selling the COLI plans. Wal-Mart alleges that it would be unjust to allow appellees to retain their profits, and asks the trial court to impose a constructive trust on the money Wal-Mart paid them. We agree with the trial court that Wal-Mart failed to state a claim under the doctrine of commercial frustration. First, that doctrine excuses future performance under a contract: Where, after a contract is made, a party's principal purpose is substantially frustrated without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his remaining duties to render performance are discharged, unless the language or circumstances indicate the contrary. [8] Wal-Mart does not seek relief from any future performance under the COLI plans. Second, Wal-Mart assumed the risk that its tax deductions would be allowed and that it had an insurable interest in all of its employees. The Amended Complaint repeatedly acknowledges the disclosed risks associated with the COLI plans, as well as Wal-Mart's interest in minimizing those risks, [9] and there are no allegations suggesting that the parties agreed to shift the risks to the appellees. Thus, Wal-Mart cannot recover under a theory of commercial frustration (or mutual mistake). [10]