Narrative Opinion Summary
D.K. Patterson Construction Company, Inc. sought damages for breach of contract against Specialty Restaurants Corporation. The trial court ruled in favor of Patterson based on a claim of unjust enrichment, which was not included in the pleadings or supported by evidence. Specialty appealed this judgment. The appellate court reversed the decision, citing precedents that establish a party cannot recover for unjust enrichment unless it is pleaded or tried with the other party's consent. No evidence was provided to indicate that the issue of unjust enrichment was tried with Specialty's consent. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a final judgment in favor of Specialty. Judges Threadgill and Parker concurred with the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Court Authority in Remandsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court instructed the trial court to enter a final judgment in favor of Specialty Restaurants Corporation upon remand.
Reasoning: Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a final judgment in favor of Specialty.
Pleading and Trial Consentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case was remanded due to the absence of any evidence indicating that the issue of unjust enrichment was tried with the consent of Specialty Restaurants Corporation.
Reasoning: No evidence was provided to indicate that the issue of unjust enrichment was tried with Specialty's consent.
Unjust Enrichment Recovery Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision because unjust enrichment was neither pleaded nor tried with the consent of Specialty Restaurants Corporation.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the decision, citing precedents that establish a party cannot recover for unjust enrichment unless it is pleaded or tried with the other party's consent.