Abstract

Comment: Restitution
The Arizona Supreme Court recently held, in Murdock-Bryant Constr., Inc. v. Taylor Pearson, that a party who enters into a joint venture agreement with a general contractor may be liable for the value of a subcontractor's work, even though the joint venture partner was not a party to the subcontract, was not responsible for the misrepresentation which led the subcontractor to rescind the contract, and was not contractually related to the prime contractor at the time the subcontract was made. The court held that the subcontractor may recover restitution from the prime contractor and the joint venture partner upon showing their unjust enrichment.

The Murdock-Bryant decision significantly modified the principles of quasi-contractual recovery. This Comment reviews the traditional scope of quasi-contractual actions and the limits to recovery in quasi-contract. Following a review of the reasons why other courts might have denied recovery, this Comment examines how the Murdock-Bryant decision modifies traditional quasi-contractual theory.

How to Cite