These facts are based on the case of Lodder v Slowey, which appears in the Case Briefs in the Instructor's Manual.""The contract was entirely unprofitable from Slodder's perspective. It expected to spend $15 000 000 and to be paid $5 000 000. It cannot recover anything by expectation damages because it did not expect to enjoy a profit from the agreement. Furthermore, since the contract was unprofitable to $10 000 000, Slodder cannot claim anything by way of reliance damages for the $7 500 000 that it spent on the project. Under the cause of action in breach of contract, Slodder must accept responsibility for the fact that it entered into a disastrously bad deal. ""However, since the contract has been discharged based on Slowey's breach of a condition, Slodder enjoys an option. First, it can bring an action for breach of contract and claim contractual relief. As we have seen, that is a pointless exercise. Second, it can bring an action for unjust enrichment: (i) Slowey was enriched by the receipt of services worth $7 500 000, (ii) Slodder suffered a corresponding deprivation of $7 500 000 because it provided those services, and (iii) there is no juristic reason for the enrichment because the contract under which they were provided has been discharged for breach. ""Once Slodder establishes the cause of action in unjust enrichment, it is entitled to receive restitution. Slowey must give back the value of the enrichment it received from Slodder. That enrichment is quantified by reference to its true market value. It is not limited to the contractual price. Slowey, therefore, is required to pay Slodder $7 500 000. Since it has already paid $2 500 000, it must pay an additional $5 000 000.