3 ms·

If the other investor wasn't an insider you wouldn't have a case against them. There's nothing unjust, you have the same rights under the contract as they do,

• will_brown 10y ago
  >If the other investor wasn't an insider you wouldn't have a case against them. There's nothing unjust... 3rd party beneficiaries of contracts get sued all the time. Just to put it into perspective, you and I enter a contract where you give me $x to invest in Y, instead of investing in Y, I just give the money to a 3rd party who may not even be mentioned in the contract, the law would most certainly allow you to go after both the third party and myself. Unjust enrichment is a legal term or art and a cause of action, not your or my definition of unjust. Here are the elements of unjust enrichment: (1) a benefit conferred upon a defendant by the plaintiff, (2) the defendant’s appreciation of the benefit, and (3) the defendant’s acceptance and retention of the benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for the defendant to retain it without paying the value of the benefit. In other words when the 3rd party assumes your investment funds, all elements would be satisfied, whether or not they are a party to the contract.
  • EdHominem 10y ago
    That's because, presumably, the contract didn't say "The first shareholder owns it all." > under circumstances that make it inequitable [...] But if that's what the contract clearly said, where would the injustice be? In lotteries one person walks away with all the money so that alone isn't enough.