Court Opinion

ID: 7591269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 06:45:17.835216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:24:39.785148
License: Public Domain

WARD, Judge,
concurs.
I concur. I believe Kodak’s claims are for unjust enrichment, under C.C. arts. 1757 and 2293. Kodak, however, has not shown that it did not have a legal right against the principal obligor, Oxford. As a matter of fact, Kodak compromised its claim against Oxford and cannot now make a claim against a third party, even if that party was enriched. See Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc., 251 La. 624, 205 So.2d 422 (1967). The principle of subsidiarity is applicable here.