Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Unjust enrichment limits recovery where no enforceable agreement covered fundraising work

Unjust enrichment limits recovery where no enforceable agreement covered fundraising work

Listen to this article
Summary:
  • North Carolina Supreme Court affirms ruling
  • Jury found no enforceable contract for fundraising work
  • Plaintiff barred from wage claim under North Carolina Wage and Hour Act

The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed a ruling limiting the plaintiff’s recovery to unjust enrichment after a jury found no enforceable agreement governing work he performed to help the defendant secure investment capital.

The plaintiff had worked for the defendant in a salaried role at Earth Fare but later sought separate compensation for efforts to raise funds for the company. According to the record, he contended this work fell outside his ordinary employment and was instead performed under a distinct arrangement that would have provided him with an ownership interest, a seat on the board of directors and other benefits associated with an outside business partner or investor. When that compensation did not materialize, he sued, asserting claims for , unjust enrichment and violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

At trial, the treated the existence of an enforceable agreement as a threshold issue. The jury was instructed that if it found no enforceable agreement governing the capital-raising work, it should not consider the Wage and Hour Act claim. The jury found there was no enforceable contract but also found the defendant had been unjustly enriched by the plaintiff’s efforts and awarded damages on that equitable claim. The plaintiff later sought post-trial relief, including judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the , but the court denied those requests.

The Supreme Court affirmed without a full opinion, leaving intact the Business Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff could not pursue statutory wage protections for the disputed work absent proof of an enforceable arrangement showing he was employed to perform those services. The decision underscores that where such proof is lacking, a plaintiff may still obtain for benefits conferred, but not recovery under the Wage and Hour Act.

The 18 page opinion is Talley v. Earth Fare 2020 Inc., Lawyers Weekly No. 010-001-26.

 

 

 

 

 


Legal Tech

See All Legal Tech News

Top Legal News

See All Top Legal News

Commentary

See All Commentary