259 A.2d 443 (1969)
Appellee, an electric corporation, developed a formalized suggestion program under which its employees were invited to submit to the company any suggestions they might have had for increasing production and reducing costs. Cash awards were offered for each suggestion adopted. Appellant submitted a suggestion, which appellee rejected. However, appellant alleged that appellee actually adopted and utilized the recommendations advanced by the suggestion. Appellee refused to make an award to appellant, asserting that the action taken was independent of his rejection. Appellant filed an amended complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The lower court sustained appellee's objections and dismissed the amended complaint.
- On appeal, the court found that appellant could not have recovered under a contract theory, but could have recovered under the unjust enrichment cause of action.
- The court could not have found that it was clear as a matter of law that appellant expected no payment or that the benefit was conferred officiously.
The court affirmed the finding that the appellant could not recover under a contract theory, but reversed as to the unjust enrichment cause of action. It was not clear that as a matter of law, appellant expected no payment or that the benefit was conferred officiously.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.