Legal Opinion

Siskron v. Temel-Peck Enterprises, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 2, 1975No. 7526SC217PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLARK, Judge.

When one person confers a benefit upon another which is not required by a contract either express or implied or a legal duty, the recipient thereof is often unjustly enriched and will be required to make restitution therefor. However, this rule is not the case where the person conferring the benefit is a volunteer or intermeddler or where the person conferring the benefit does so without affording the recipient an opportunity to reject the benefit. See D. Dobbs, Remedies, § 4.9 (1973). This latter principle called the “choice principle,” does not apply, however, with absolute…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. LaChance v. RigoliMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1950
  2. Beacon Homes, Inc. v. HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. Chatfield v. FishSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  4. Kennedy v. NelsonAlabama Court of Appeals · 1954

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. D.W.H. Painting Co. v. D.W. Ward Construction Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  2. Progressive American Insurance v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  3. Dastgheib v. Genentech, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. Mathis v. HoffmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  5. McCoy v. PeachCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API