The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies the principles of restitution to disputes that are not governed by a contract between the parties. It characterizes the result of a failure to make restitution under circumstances that give rise to an implied or quasi-contractual obligation to return those benefits.

The courts describe this claim in general principles. For example, courts have stated that a claim for unjust enrichment seeks to restore money where equity and good conscience require restitution; it is not premised on wrongdoing, but seeks to determine to which party, in equity, justice, and law, the money belongs; and it seeks to prevent unconscionable loss to the payor and unjust enrichment to the payee.

Because recovery based on unjust enrichment of another party relies on the court's sense of fairness or equity rather than the law, it is often referred to as the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment.

In Idaho, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is recognized and applied by courts when there is no contractual agreement governing the parties' relationship, but one party has received a benefit at the expense of another in a manner that equity and good conscience dictate should be rectified. The doctrine operates on the premise that it would be unjust for the recipient to retain the benefit without compensating the party who has suffered a loss. This legal principle is rooted in the concept of restitution and is aimed at preventing one party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of another. It is an equitable remedy, meaning that it is based on principles of fairness rather than strict legal rules. When a claim of unjust enrichment is brought before an Idaho court, the court will consider whether the enrichment of one party is unjust and whether restitution is appropriate under the circumstances. The claim is not dependent on the existence of wrongful conduct but rather on the determination of to whom the money or benefit rightfully belongs.