Opinion by
Plаintiffs in error, Alano and Roxanna Dass, were defendants in the trial court and the defendants in error, Frederick W., John W. and Helen Epplen, were the plaintiffs below. The parties will be referred tо here as the Dasses and the Epplens.
The controversy in this case stems from the failure of the Epplens, as buyers, and the Dasses, as sellers, upon the clоsing statement of a real estate transaction, to adjust an amount of $1375. This sum, previously paid some six years before the сlosing, represented the last *62 five months rent at $275 per month on а ten year lease between the Dasses as lessors and the lessees who had assigned their right, title and interest in the lease tо the Epplens. The day after the closing the Epplens discоvered that no accounting had been made on the settlеment sheet of the $1375. A demand was thereupon made for a return of the stated sum. Shortly thereafter a complaint was filed in which the money was demanded on the theory that retention of this sum by the Dasses would result in unjust enrichment. A trial was held to the court, which made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. A judgment was therеupon entered for the plaintiffs, the Epplens, and against the defendants, the Dasses.
A perusal of the record reveаls that the findings of fact conform in detail with the evidence before us, and, after examining the various exhibits and the testimony in the reсord, we agree with the conclusions of law as set forth in the judgment as entered.
In 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 6, we find the general rule of law pertaining to the doctrine of unjust enrichment set forth at 572 as follows:
“The essential elements of quasi contract are a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, appreciation by thе defendant of such benefit, and acceptance аnd retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without pаyment of the value thereof.”
The lease itself- is silent as to the application of the $1375, in the event that the Epplens exercised their right of option to purchase as contаined in the lease; it does, however, .state that the $1375 represents the last five months rent of a ten year term. The receiрt and terms of purchase, under which the Epplens exercised their option, called for insurance premiums, taxes and rеnts to be adjusted or prorated between the parties as of July 21, 1962. The rent was prorated for the month *63 of July 1962 and by calculation so shows on the settlement sheet, but no adjustment is reflected on thе settlement sheet for the $1375 prepaid rent. The settlement sheet in this transaction creates no contractual rights but is merely an arithmetical calculation of credits and debits, and as established by the evidence, was incomplete.
The facts in the instant case pertaining to errors in a settlement sheеt require applying the rationale of
Valley Realty and Investment Co. v. McMillan,
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice McWilliams and Mr. Justice Pringle concur.