Find the judgement, issue, holding, reasoning, general analysis and applied analysis for this case
The condo defendants moved to dismiss PWS's claims against them. John E. Steele, Senior United States District Judge A claim for breach of a contract implied in law is also known as "unjust enrichment" [or "quasi-contract."] "In Florida, a claim for unjust enrichment is an equitable claim based on a legal fiction which implies a contract as a matter of law even though the parties to such an implied contract never indicated by deed or word that an agreement existed between them." 14th & Heinberg, LLC v. Terhaar & Cronley Gen. Contractors, Inc., 43 So. 3d 877, 880 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010). . . . A claim of unjust enrichment requires PWS to show by at least a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) PWS conferred a direct benefit on the condo defendants, (2) the condo defendants had knowledge of the benefit, (3) the condo defendants accepted or retained the conferred benefit, and (4) the benefit was conferred under circumstances which make it inequitable for the condo defendants to retain the benefit without paying its fair value. Unjust enrichment "acknowledges an obligation which is imposed by law regardless of the intent of the parties." Circle Fin. Co. v. Peacock, 399 So. 2d 81, 84 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981). A plaintiff must directly confer the benefit upon defendant. Peoples Nat'l Bank of Commerce v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Fla., 667 So. 2d 876, 879 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996). . .. PWS has plausibly alleged the elements of an unjust enrichment claim in order to avoid dismissal. PWS alleges that it directly conferred the benefit of its pressure washing services on each of the condominiums. PWS serviced each of the condominiums for multiple days at a time, while regularly communicating with the condo defendants' agent, All Clear, about the progress. Plaintiff does not specifically allege that the condo defendants had knowledge of the benefit, but plaintiff does state that All Clear, as the condo defendants' agent, had knowledge of the benefit. In Florida, an agent may bind his or her principal based on real or actual authority. . . . The Court accepts at this stage in the proceedings the allegations that the condo defendants had knowledge of the benefit through its agent, as well as a reasonable inference that the condo defendants could have had personal knowledge based on the allegations that the pressure washing often went on for days at each property. Finally, the condo defendants, by the very nature of the services conferred upon them, retained the pressure washing benefits. These circumstances could result in inequity if the condominiums were able to retain these benefits without conferring just compensation upon PWS. . .. For the foregoing reasons, the condo defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.may be limited as justice requires. Page 9-14 PWS Environmental, Inc. v. All Clear Restoration and Remediation, LLC 2018 WL 3139736 (M.D. Fla. 2018) On September 16, 2017, All Clear Restoration and Remediation, LLC (All Clear) contacted PWS Environmental, Inc. (PWS) asking if PWS was available to provide pressure washing services to several condominium properties in the wake of Hurricane Irma, which struck west central and southwestern Florida the previous week. At the time PWS was performing pressure washing services in Texas as part of the Hurricane Harvey clean-up but decided to decline additional jobs in Texas in favor of moving the equipment to Florida for the business opportunities presented by All Clear there. On September 18, 2017, PWS e-mailed a proposal to All Clear to provide services to 14 residential properties for whom All Clear was acting as agent in the Hurricane Irma clean up process. The e-mail asked All Clear to sign and return the proposal or acknowledge it by a return e-mail, which a representative of All Clear did, stating, "Thanks. I am fine with attachment. Please proceed." Through the rest of September and October, PWS worked on pressure washing the condominiums and sent invoices to All Clear seeking payment for that work. All Clear failed to pay for any of the work. While PWS sued All Clear for breach of the contract it claims the parties entered, it also sued the condominium associations that owned the properties PWS power washed (the "condo defendants") for breach of implied contract (i.e., quasi-contract), seeking damages for the value of the work it performed. The condo defendants moved to dismiss PWS's claims against them. John E. Steele, Senior United States District Judge A claim for breach of a contract implied in law is also known as "unjust enrichment" [or "quasi-contract."] "In Florida, a claim for unjust enrichment is an e quitable claim
