[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff conferred a benefit upon Defendant;
2. Defendant appreciated the benefit;
3. Defendant accepted and retained the benefit without paying the value thereof; and
4. The circumstances are such that it is inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Plaintiff conferred a benefit upon Defendant;
2. Defendant appreciated the benefit;
3. Defendant accepted and retained the benefit without paying the value thereof; and
4. The circumstances are such that it is inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit without paying fair value for it.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: In re Std. Jury Instructions-Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So.3d 284, 309 (Fla. 2013).

First District: Jenks v. Bynum Transp., Inc., 104 So.3d 1217, 1224 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (in dissent).

Second District: Procacci v. Harllee, 95 So.3d 997, 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).

Third District: Crawley-Kitzman v. Hernandez, 324 So.3d 968, 975-76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Perez v. Salmeron, 307 So. 3d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Fourth District: J.P. Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Colletti Investments, LLC, 199 So.3d 395, 397-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Commerce P’ship 8098 Ltd. P’ship v. Equity Contr. Co., 695 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla 4th DCA 1997).

Fifth District: Am. Safety Ins. Serv. v. Griggs, 959 So.2d 322, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Glob. Network Mgmt., LTD. v. Centurylink Latin Am. Sols., LLC, 67 F.4th 1312, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2023); OJ Com., LLC v. Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc., 817 F. App’x 686, 692 (11th Cir. 2020); Paylan v. Teitelbaum, 798 Fed.Appx. 458, 464 (11th Cir. 2020).

Southern District: Gabriel v. SLS Lux Brickell Hotel, No. 24-CV-23572, 2025 WL 886925, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2025); Neurosurgical Consultants of S. Fla., LLC v. UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co., 2023 WL 1826860, *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2023); Vanguard Plastic Surgery, PLLC v. United Health Grp. Inc., 2021 WL 4651504, *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2021); BG Strategic Advisors, LLC v. FreightHub, Inc., No. 21-80299-CIV, 2021 WL 2589087, at *6 (S.D. Fla. June 24, 2021).

Middle District: US Thrillrides, LLC v. Intamin Amusement Rides Int. Corp. Est., 767 F. Supp. 3d 1331, 1364-65 (M.D. Fla. 2025); Remembrance Grp., Inc. v. Centazzo, 2022 WL 1406673, *7 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2022); Lawrence v. FPA Villa Del Lago, LLC, No. 8:20-CV-1517-VMC-JSS, 2021 WL 2401847, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2021); RXStrategies, Inc. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 390 F.Supp. 3d 1341, 1355 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Northern District: Sport & Wheat, CPA, PA v. ServisFirst Bank, Inc., 479 F.Supp.3d 1247, 1254 (N.D. Fla. 2020); Penton v. Centennial Bank, No. 4:18-cv-00450-AW-CAS, 2019 WL 6769661, at *4 (N.D. Fla. November 22, 2019).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Breach of Implied in Law Contract

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Assent: “While contracts implied in fact, such as an action in quantum meruit, require the assent of the parties, contracts implied in law do not require such assent.” Rite-Way Painting & Plastering, Inc. v. Tetor, 582 So. 2d 15, 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

(4) Payment: Where defendant has made payment for the benefit conferred, no unjust enrichment can exist. See Williams v. Bear Stearns & Co., 725 So. 2d 397, 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 737 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1999).

(5) Express Contract: Where an express contract exists, an action for unjust enrichment fails. See N.G.L. Travel Assocs. v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 764 So. 2d 672, 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Agritrade, LP v. Quercia, 253 So.3d 28, 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Glob. Network Mgmt., LTD. v. Centurylink Latin Am. Sols., LLC, 67 F.4th 1312, 1318 (11th Cir. 2023).

(6) Implied-in-Fact Contract Compared: “A contract implied in fact is an enforceable contract ‘that is inferred in whole or in part from the parties’ conduct, not solely from their words.’ A contract implied in law is ‘an obligation created by the law without regard to the parties’ expression of assent by their words or conduct.’ In short, a contract implied in law does not require an agreement, however, a contract implied in fact does. A quasi contract is a contract implied in law since it does not require an agreement.” Cds & Assocs. of the Palm Beaches v. 1711 Donna Rd. Assocs., 743 So. 2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Commerce P’ship 8098 Ltd. P’ship v. Equity Contr. Co.,695 So. 2d 383, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)); Brush v. Miami Beach Healthcare Group Ltd., 238  F.Supp.3d 1359,1369 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

[/MM_Access_Decision]