Wilson v. Moore

I respectfully dissent. In my opinion plaintiff has made out a plain case of unjust enrichment entitling him to restitution of the purchase price of the real estate. The judgment should be reversed.

The trial court concluded that there was no mutual mistake of fact, and that even if there had been a mutual mistake of fact, defendants had substantially changed their position such that plaintiffs recovery of the payment would be inequitable. Both conclusions are contrary to settled principles of the law of restitution. The facts being essentially undisputed, the questions presented are questions…