Opinion ID: 552196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rescission and Unjust Enrichment

Text: 105 The district court held that the remedy of equitable rescission of the Facility Agreement is unavailable to Hutton because Hutton has an adequate remedy at law: a breach of contract action against RBI for damages. We agree. 106 An adequate remedy at law defeats a claim for rescission under New York law. See Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc., 30 N.Y.2d 1, 330 N.Y.S.2d 33, 43, 280 N.E.2d 867, 874 (1972). The adequacy of the legal remedy for damages does not depend on the collectibility of the claim. American Cities Power & Light Corp. v. Williams, 189 Misc. 829, 69 N.Y.S.2d 197, 203 (1947). Therefore, we affirm the district court's summary judgment against Hutton on its rescission claim. 107 Because the $48 million was placed in the Accounts in exchange for and pursuant to the Facility Agreement and Note, the Accounts' owners were not unjustly enriched by the transfer of funds from Hutton Group to Hutton Company. And absent unjust enrichment, we may not grant Hutton quasi-contractual relief. See Feigen v. Advance Capital Management Corp., 150 A.D.2d 281, 541 N.Y.S.2d 797 (a non-signatory to a contract cannot be held liable [in quasi contract] where there is an express contract covering the same subject matter), appeal dismissed, 74 N.Y.2d 874, 547 N.Y.S.2d 840, 547 N.E.2d 95 (1989). We affirm the district court's summary judgment that the Facility Agreement precludes Hutton's quasi-contractual unjust enrichment claim.