law-express-contract-defense | equitable quasi-contractual theories of recovery | quantum meruit
HOUSTON CASE LAW ON THIS LEGAL CONCEPT
Generally speaking, when a valid, express contract covers the subject matter of the parties' dispute, there can be
no recovery under a quasi-contract theory, such as unjust enrichment. Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52
S.W.3d 671, 684 (Tex.2000); DeClaire v. G & B Mcintosh Family Ltd. P'ship, 260 S.W.3d 34, 49 (Tex.App.-Houston
[1st Dist.] 2008, no pet. h.).
This is because parties should be bound by their express agreements, and when a valid agreement already
addresses the matter, recovery under an equitable theory is generally inconsistent with the express terms of the
agreement. Conoco, 52 S.W.3d at 684; see also Edwards v. Mid-Continent Office Distribs., L.P., 252 S.W.3d 833,
837 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied) ("The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies the principles of restitution to
disputes that are not governed by a contract between the parties."). An exception to this rule is when overpayment
was made under a valid contract. Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 966 S.W.2d 467, 469-70
(Tex.1998).
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE