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 Michigan, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is recognized and applied by courts when one party has received a benefit that it would be inequitable for them to retain without paying for it, and there is no contractual agreement governing the situation. This doctrine is based on the principles of equity and restitution, and it operates under the premise that it would be unjust for a party to benefit at the expense of another without compensating them. The claim for unjust enrichment is not based on any wrongdoing by the enriched party but is instead focused on the fairness of the situation. Michigan courts will consider whether, under the circumstances, there is an implied or quasi-contractual obligation to return the benefit received. The goal is to prevent one party from suffering an unconscionable loss while the other is unjustly enriched. This equitable remedy is discretionary and is applied by the court to achieve a just outcome based on the specifics of each case.