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 Nebraska, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is recognized and applied by courts to address situations where one party has received a benefit unjustly at the expense of another, in the absence of a contractual agreement. This doctrine is rooted in principles of equity, aiming to prevent one party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of another. Nebraska courts will consider claims for unjust enrichment when a party has received a benefit that, in fairness and good conscience, they should not retain. The remedy sought is typically restitution, which is the return of the benefit or its value to the party who has been disadvantaged. The claim is not based on the presence of wrongful conduct but rather on the equitable principle that it is unjust for a party to retain benefits without compensating the provider. The courts will look at the circumstances of each case to determine whether an implied or quasi-contractual obligation exists, and whether restitution is warranted to prevent an unconscionable loss to the payor and unjust enrichment to the payee.