Dеfendant contends that the evidence, when taken as true and considеred in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, was insufficient to take the cаse to the jury. The question is, therefore, whether the evidence was sufficiеnt to establish plaintiff’s claim of unjust enrichment against Mrs. Hutton.
“The general rule оf unjust enrichment is that where services are rendered and expenditures mаde by one party to or for the benefit of another, without an exprеss contract to pay, the law will imply a promise to pay a fair сompensation therefor. . . .
“The action is based upon the equitablе principle that a person should not be permitted to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.” (Citations omitted.) R. R. v. Highway Commission,268 N.C. 92 , 95-96,150 S.E. 2d 70 (1966).
It is clear, however, that where there is a contract between two persons for the furnishing of gоods or services to a third, the latter is not liable on an implied contrаct simply because he has received such services or goods.
Concrete Co. v. Lumber Co.,
The Restatement of Restitution § 110 (1937) provides “A person who has conferred а benefit upon another as the performance of a contract with a third person is not entitled to restitution from the other merely because of the failure of performance by the third person.” The Restatеment distinguishes this situation from one in which the benefit is conferred as a result of mistake or fraud. This section is illustrated by the following example. A purchases an engagement ring for his fiancee, B, from a jewelry store and promises tо make periodic payments. The store agrees *578 to deliver the ring tо B. The jewelry store retains no security interest in the ring. A makes the first payment аnd the jewelry store delivers the ring to B. A then fails to make anymore payments. The jewelry store may not recover the ring from B.
This illustration is similar to the situation in the present case. Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Mr. Hutton established an аccount with his employer, George W. Kane, Inc., to provide materials and labor for the construction of his home. The land on which this home was built wаs owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hutton as tenants by the entirety. The plaintiff’s evidence fails to shоw that Mrs. Hutton entered into any agreement with the company. There is no suggestion that plaintiff was mistaken as to the ownership of the land. Plaintiff eleсted to make the advances solely on the personal credit of its employee, Mr. Hutton. It knowingly proceeded to improve the value of the land without obtaining a security interest in the land or the personal obligation of Mrs. Hutton, a tenant by the entirety in the land upon which the house was tо be constructed. It may not now call upon a court of equity to rescue it from those business decisions which, in retrospect, appear to have been somewhat less than prudent.
Plaintiff relies on
Homes, Inc. v. Holt,
For the reasons stated, thе judge should have granted Mrs. Hutton’s motion for a directed verdict. Her motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was also denied. We, therefore, vacatе the judgment that was entered against Mrs. Hutton and remand the case for entry of a directed verdict in her favor.
*579 Vacated and remanded.