Hi, I need help with this case

I)-list the elements of Unjust Enrichment from the Seawest Case. Seawest v. Copenhaver, NO. 65577-9-I, (Wash. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2012)

FACTS

The main facts are undisputed. The Copenhaver's own Island County, Washington real property. Seawest maintains and operates a domestic water & distribution system ." Jim and Suzanne Copenhaver paid Seawest for water services and related assessments since 2001. However, after a dispute, the Copenhavers stopped paying for the water, claiming they did not have an express contract with Seawest. Seawest, therefore, sued the Copenhavers for the unpaid bills. The trial court granted summary judgment in Seawest'sfavor, and the Copenhavers appealed.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The record supports a contract implied in law. The essential elements of unjust enrichment are "'a benefit conferred upon the defendant by the plaintiff; an appreciation or knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and the acceptance or retention by the defendant of the benefit under such circumstances as to make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without the payment of its value.'"In such situations, a "quasi-contract" or "contract implied in law" exists between the parties.

All owners who held Seawest water shares are responsible for paying assessments. Undisputed evidence discussed above shows that the Copenhavers utilized the Seawest system and paid, without objection until litigation ensued, all water use, water maintenance, and assessmentbase charges to Seawest. The Copenhaver's stopped all payments (including water charges) and claimed they were not Seawest limited members for the first time when this litigation ensued.

The Copenhaver's received quarterly water bills that show charges for "water base," "water usage," and "assessment base." the Copenhavers would be unjustly enriched if they could retain benefits provided by Seawest without paying for them. The Copenhaver's acquired property that carried with it a water share.We conclude the undisputed record supports a contract implied in law. The Copenhaver's would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Seawest if they were allowed to retain the benefits of the water system without paying for it. Like inLake Limerick, receiving services from an association without paying for them would be unjust. The record supports a contract implied in law.

CASE BRIEF

Issue:

Plaintiff: Copenhaver's need to pay for water

Defendant: Copenhaver's do not believe they do not need to pay because they don't have a contract?

Issue: Whether the Copenhavers are required to pay Seawest for the water they used, even though they had no express contract.

Rule: This Rule is Called "Quasi Contract" or "Unjust Enrichment." It has 4 parts (elements):

1)the defendant received a benefit

2)the defendant knew they were getting a benefit

3)the defendant accepted/retained/used the benefit

4)it would be inequitable (unfair) to let the defendant use the benefit without paying.

Application of Relevant facts to Law (facts which have been applied to the rule by the trial court:

1)The Copenhavers received a benefit - water

2)The Copenhavers knew they were getting the water

3)The Copenhavers accepted/used the water

4)It would be unfair to let the Cophenavers use the water without paying for it.

Conclusion: The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's application of facts to the law and affirmed (agreed) with the trial court: The Copenhavers are required to pay Seaawest for the water they used even though they had no express contract.

II) - After reading Seawest v Copenhaver, and its legal analysis, compare that case to the story below and discuss whether or not quasi-contract should apply. Explain fully.

Theodore & Franklin developed Crazy Cat, a caricature of a Calico Cat with a "do-not-back-down" attitude. They promoted and marketed the character to KitDoodle, a popular supplier of cat food and cat products. Kipling, a marketing manager at KitDoodle, liked the idea, presented it to the CFO (along with financial terms) who rejected it. Meanwhile, the CFO approached its advertising agency with a "new idea" involving a Crazy Calico Cat. The company made the Cat the focus of its marketing but paid nothing to Theodore & Franklin. Theodore & Franklin sued KitDoodle for, among other things Breach of Implied Contract.

Answer the following questions. {Do not discuss Intellectual Property Rights.}

1.What is the rule of Implied Contract?

2.Appy each rule to the facts to determine if the requirements for an implied contract exist.

Thanks.