Lovers Groove; a short love story An analysis of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment in Romantic Relationships

Let me tell you a love story that’s not about love. It is a true story too.

Once upon a time, I got a referral from a friend for a lady who needed legal assistance. The client called for consultation the next day. She seemed very bubbly and jovial over the phone. She did her best to explain her predicament to me over the phone and while listening to her, I couldn’t help but marvel at the lengths one would go for another in the name of love.

In summary, she had been in a relationship with one fine doctor (let's call him Mr. Boyfriend) for a couple of years within which period she had rendered several services to him. Her mistake as she called it was sharing in the dream of growing the new business of her man and living the good life eventually. She is a brilliant Public relations personnel and Social media manager and she practically single-handedly multiplied the net worth and overall business popularity of Mr. Boyfriend over a few years. A few examples of things she did for Mr. Boyfriend included setting up and managing Mr. Boyfriend's business website and social media pages, carrying out internet campaigns periodically setting up and organizing medical seminars, and much more, and at her own expense. A few years down the line the relationship broke up and my client took down the social media pages and website she had created. Mr. Boyfriend demanded that the internet data be reinstated, and my client declined demanding that Mr. Boyfriend pay for the services provided and money spent first. Call her a scorned lover, but this is what this article is talking about.

During the consultation, my client was able to break down services (Tangible and intangible) and monies spent with impeccable specificity. I jumped into action and wrote a letter of demand to which a meeting was scheduled. To cut my long story short, the meeting did not go quite as smoothly as anticipated and nothing was resolved as Mr. boyfriend was not willing to discuss at all; he stated his stance on not being indebted (among other bitter utterances) and stormed out. Now the question of the day is whether or not my client is entitled to claim money spent back being that all this work and money spent was done without a contract of any kind, and during a romantic relationship with her Mr. Boyfriend.

Upon studying to write this article I had initially attempted to this issue to a claim of damages under the equitable law of tort of breach of promise to marry. However, the salient components that will ordinarily entitle my client to damages were lacking as follows:

1.????The actual promise to marry: proof can be by documentary proof of promise to marry or a ring received at any time as a pledge of marriage.

2.????The breach or reneging on the promise to marry. There must be the actual reneging; proof of which is by showing the actual breakup or marriage of the promising partner to another person.

3.????Direct damage caused by the breach of promise to marry; this may include mental breakdowns, money spent on love, wasted years, psychological trauma and emotional trauma, financial loss, and foregone alternatives, as a direct result of the breach of promise to marry.

The above components are cumulative and are pretty hard to prove totally and successfully in court. The result of a successful suit on breach of promise to marry will be damages. Failure to prove all elements means that the heartbroken party was just the nicer one during the relationship and will bring to fruition the saying that there is no loss in love and war. As stated by PATS-ACHOLONU JSC in?EZEANAH V. ATTA?(supra):

“I refuse to lend a hand to assuage the feelings of a lover whose romance went away. The love that once bound these two people and now got frosted can be likened to the verse of Shakespeare's “Sonnets” a sort of lamentation, and also verse 1 of “Passionate Pilgrim”. Thus, we have in this case so much love and then so much pain. It is the way of the world”.

This position took me aback for more than a second, as those who know me know that I don’t back down easily. Meeting this guy also made me take the matter personally since he showed me what kind of disrespectful and ungrateful person he could be, there was no way I was letting this matter die without getting my pound of flesh or at least my client’s money back.

My short story however seems to vary far from a breach of promise to marry, as I had not heard from her story about an actual promise to marry, and the issue was more about steps taken by her in hopes of the relationship cumulating into her happily ever after.

Looking back at my journey as a lawyer, one of the scariest and most important topics in my journey has been the issue of contracts. The law of contract is riddled with specifics without which the contract becomes invalid and unenforceable. But once again equity has come to the rescue. Thankfully, the law of contract is also riddled with many exceptions and variations which led to my eureka moment. These exceptions and variations to the laws of contract are the savior of service providers who otherwise can be taken advantage of. Among the many exemptions and variations, I shall highlight the contracts which is most relevant here.?

Quasi contract

Quasi contracts also known as implied or constructive contracts will generally cover parties who may have not intended to enter into a contract originally. A quasi-contract is a contract implied in fact and is?illustrated by the way the parties behave.[1] Quasi-contracts provide for one party to recover services rendered even without a signed agreement. While it is more ideal to have an agreement whether oral or written the law recognizes that it is not always possible for all business transactions to be documented and therefore will not turn its back on people who are likely to be treated unfairly in these circumstances.

Quasi-contracts guard against the unjust enrichment of people who otherwise will attempt to take unfair advantage of others. The law states about quasi-contracts that there should be payment for the services rendered and repayment of finances extended on behalf of the receiving party. Quasi-contracts generally lower the burden of contractual requirements; this essentially means that the meeting of minds or parties, whether orally or in written form can be overlooked to a large extent.

The principle of unjust enrichment[2]

Looking further into quasi-contracts, the wonderful principle of unjust enrichment popped up and is even more specific to our purposes here. But first the definition.

Black’s?Law Dictionary 8th Edition at pages defines unjust enrichment as

1.????the retention of a benefit conferred by another without conferring compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected

2.????A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.

Unjust enrichment crystalizes when value is passed or given. An exchange of value whether financial or otherwise, directly, or indirectly will breed liability for value through exchange to the extent of its value in the event of wrongful injury or deprivation.

The principle of unjust enrichment is pretty obvious when applied to issues of fraud, or embezzlement, and other related crimes whose circumstances are well handled by anti-graft laws and agencies like the Nigerian Police Force and The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, and relevant agencies[3] and other relevant laws. My story has however highlighted less obvious issues, but more commonly overlooked and relating to our daily affairs with regular people. The story is about blind bliss when parties tend to dish out financial and business sacrifices as favors when the going is good and without thinking that things can go sour.

Other relationships more likely to fall under this category include:

• Family members who may have exchanged money or services without proper documentation
• Lovers who provide financial support based on affection
• Persons who have exchanged services or finances with flaws in their contract, incomplete or no contract at all.
• Money received

Regardless of whether the value transferred is monetary or in the form of services provided whether professional or otherwise, the principle of unjust enrichment generally ensures that the law does not close its eyes to a person on the receiving end of such circumstances arising out of a quasi-contract.

The following are elements that must exist for claims to succeed under an unjust enrichment:

a.????There must be an enrichment. An enrichment means anything of value whether moveable or immovable, money or services.

b.????The enrichment received must be shown to be at the giver’s expense.

c.????There must exist an unjust factor that requires the reversal of the enrichment?[4]

The Unjust Factor

The principle of unjust enrichment originates from the Roman legal maxim'?“nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura?or nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura” which translates as... Continue Reading Here