CT · jury_instructions
Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 4.3-3
Unjust Enrichment (Implied-In-Law or Quasi- Contract)
The plaintiff seeks to recover the value of <insert goods/services) (he/she/it) provided because
the defendant was unjustly enriched by the plaintiff's provision of <insert goods/services>.
Unjust enrichment means that it is contrary to equity and good conscience for the defendant to
retain a benefit that has come to the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff.
To find unjust enrichment, you must find that the plaintiff has provided <insert goods/services>,
that the defendant has benefited from those <insert goods/services>, that the defendant unjustly
did not pay for that benefit, and that the defendant's failure to pay hurt the plaintiff.
[<If the plaintiff has pleaded unjust enrichment in the alternative to breach of contract:> For
you to find for the plaintiff under this legal principle, you must first find that there was no
written or oral contract expressed in words and no contract implied by conduct for the plaintiff to
provide <insert goods/services>. If you find that there was a contract for the plaintiff to
provide <insert goods/services>, you may not find that the defendant was unjustly enriched.]
Provenance
- Source
- jud.ct.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
1368a805a8460cb24a54338b40c3de56565433dbdb3ff7a75d1a413380935bfc
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.