New Hampshire
How Adamo Wrecking Co. v. U.S. applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Other.
New Hampshire recognizes and applies similar principles from Adamo Wrecking Co. v. U.S. regarding claims for unjust enrichment where a party seeks restitution for a benefit conferred under an agreement that proves unenforceable. The focus is on the reasonable expectations of the parties and efforts to uphold the fairness doctrine.
In New Hampshire, for a claim of unjust enrichment, a claimant must demonstrate that they conferred a benefit upon another party, the recipient retained that benefit under circumstances that would make it unjust not to compensate the conferrer, and there is no adequate legal remedy available.
The court reiterated that for unjust enrichment, benefit conferral and the retention of that benefit under unjust circumstances are essential.
The court held that the enrichment must be quantified and traceable to the claimant's efforts to warrant restitution.
In this case, the court recognized the importance of the claimant's expectation of payment for services rendered in determining unjust enrichment.
New Hampshire’s standard closely aligns with the federal standard in Adamo Wrecking Co. v. U.S., which emphasizes the necessity for showing an unjust benefit retention. However, New Hampshire can lean more heavily on the reasonable expectations of the parties as an interpretative guide in its adjudication.
Candidates should be aware that unjust enrichment principles from Adamo Wrecking can surface in bar exam questions, particularly in segments testing contract law, equity, and remedies.