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 New Jersey, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is recognized as a legal principle that allows a party to recover benefits conferred on another party when there is no enforceable contract between them. The doctrine is based on the concept of equity, aiming to prevent one party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of another. To establish a claim for unjust enrichment in New Jersey, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant received a benefit, and retention of that benefit without payment would be unjust. The courts will consider factors such as the relationship between the parties, the expectations of the parties, and the possibility of a windfall to the defendant if restitution is not made. This doctrine is applied by the courts to ensure that no party is unjustly enriched and that justice is served in the absence of a formal contract. It is important to note that unjust enrichment claims are fact-specific, and the outcomes can vary depending on the circumstances of each case.