Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs and Defendant formed a partnership to renovate apartment buildings. Defendant, as part of the partnership contract, agreed to lend the partnership any money it needed to cover operating costs beyond what profits would cover. Defendants defaulted on their agreement and Plaintiffs lost their entire investment.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Restitution damages are damages that keep the breaching party from enjoying unjust enrichment. In cases when the breaching party does not enjoy unjust enrichment, restitution damages are not proper.
Issue. Was the trial court correct in denying Plaintiff’s prayer for restitution damages.
Whether or not the breach of the guarantee agreement was material to the contract is irrelevant and has no bearing on whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution damages. Restitution damages are designed to put the defendant back in the position the defendant would have been in the contract had not happened, which is opposed to damages that are designed to put the plaintiff in the position plaintiff would have been if the contract had been performed or had plaintiff not entered into the contract in the first place.
Restitution damages are to keep the defendant from unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff. In this case, there was no unjust enrichment. Defendants lost all of their investment as well as Plaintiff. Their loss totaled about $3,000,000.00.
We have regularly held that it is a condition of rescission and restitution that the plaintiff offer, as nearly as possible, to place the other party in the same situation that existed prior to the execution of the contract.View Full Point of Law