Legal Case: Borman Vs Crosstown

In my view there were two scenarios in this case and they are based on when the rental agreement started. To explain, the first scenario would be that Grant Borman started renting the crane when it left the Allied site. On the other hand, the second one considers that Borman would only start paying for the rent when the crane arrives at his construction venue. As a result, the unjust enrichment of the third party (Crosstown) could have occurred either over the temporary possession of crane by Borman (First scenario) or during Allied full ownership (Second scenario). Hence, my first impression was that Allied should only have grounds to sue Crosstown if the second scenario occurred. Otherwise, the plaintiff would be unreasonably requesting the court to be double paid during the period when Crosstown used the crane. Nevertheless, the theory behind the unjust enrichment states that individuals should not be allowed to profit or enriches themselves inequitably at the expense of others (textbook). With this statement …show more content…
Additionally, Crosstown charged the utility company for the service it provided using the crane. Therefore, Crosstown enriched in an unjust way from an Allied’s asset, which suggests that a quasi-contract should be imposed by the court. In fact, this case fulfills all the requirements to recover under the theory of the quasi contract. In particular, the fact that the plaintiff was in the business of equipment rental; therefore, this organization expected to be paid whenever its equipment is used by another party. Subsequently, Allied should be able to recover in quantum merit the reasonable value for the crane rental during the period when Crosstown provided the service to the utility company. In other words, Allied should receive the rental value from Crosstown as if there was a rental agreement between the plaintiff and