The restoration of a theory of unjust enrichment usually occurs when there has been no contract between the parties or a contract proves invalid. See Wex: Quasi-contract. Unjust enrichment usually occurs in situations where there is a breach of contract, when one party provides goods and services and expects payment, only to find that the other party refuses to pay. Although restitution and compensation have similar aspects, there are important differences between the two with regard to unjust enrichment. They may affect the total amount that goes to the injured party. Restitution is money wrongly paid by the accused, and that money must be returned. It can also be a specific item that was obtained by mistake. To solve unjust enrichment, there are two types of remedies: personal and proprietary. With regard to personal remedies, the defendant must make amends. Exclusive remedies include cases where the plaintiff has suffered damages after agreeing to a contract and the defendant fails to comply with the stated obligations.
The court grants this option after deciding that the defendant owns and has a special interest in property or property. The interpretations of Roman legal principles for unjust enrichment by the French jurist Jean Domat and the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny formed the respective origins of modern French and German law on unjust enrichment.  Domat developed the French principles of unjust enrichment, based on the actio de in rem verso, as well as a modified version of the Roman concept of causa (cause), which makes treaties voidable even if they are not normally recognized by Roman law.  On the other hand, the concept of unjust enrichment is much broader and is used more frequently in Germany and Greece to address issues of restitution and restoration of failing legal acts.  Fair traceability is a particularly well-suited remedy. 4 Although the term “unjust enrichment” is often used as a term for a remedy, this author finds it conceptually more satisfying to think that it is general injustice that leads to just and specific remedies such as constructive trust, restitution and equitable privilege. Another example is when you have two puppies and take them to the groomer for cleaning and cutting the nails. The groomer finishes working on the first puppy, but something comes up and he can`t take care of the other puppy. The groomer is unfairly enriched because you paid for both puppies, but only one was cared for. One source of confusion could be that quantum meruit in law has evolved to achieve exactly the same just result – the prevention of “unjust enrichment” that could occur when a party who had provided a service was without contractual recourse due to the strict requirements of the common law pleading system.1 For this reason, Courts debate quantum meruit sometimes refer to the normative objective of preventing a party from being “unjustifiably enriched” without the intention of invoking the just remedy known as unjust enrichment. See e.B. Tobin & Tobin Ins.
Agency, Inc. v. Zeskind, 315 So. 2d 518, 520 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).2 In fact, “unjust enrichment” is identified as one of the elements of a quantum meruit claim. See below. Cases of unjustified (or unjustified) enrichment can be studied as follows: There is a crucial theoretical difference between the level of recovery under unjustified enrichment and that under quantum meruit. Unjust enrichment focuses on the “advantage” granted to the recipient and not on the appropriate value of the services provided by the applicant as they result from the contract. That is, one looks through the eyes of the recipient to determine whether what was done was an achievement and, if so, what value was received. In some cases, there may be no difference in the dollar amount seen by both parties, but in others, the difference may be large. It is not uncommon in construction processes for practitioners to confuse theories of recovery commonly known as “quantum meruit” and “unjust enrichment”. Typically, these theories are cited as alternative charges when a plaintiff does not know if a claim for breach of contract or seizure of a mortgage is feasible.