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 West Virginia, the doctrine of unjust enrichment is recognized and applied by courts when one party has received a benefit unjustly at the expense of another, and there is no valid contract governing the transaction between them. This doctrine is rooted in principles of equity, aiming to prevent one party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of another. When a claim for unjust enrichment is brought forth, the court looks at the circumstances to determine whether it would be equitable and conscionable for the recipient of the benefit to retain it without providing compensation. If the court finds that restitution is warranted, it can imply a contract (quasi-contract) and order the enriched party to make restitution to the aggrieved party. This remedy is not based on the existence of any wrongdoing or a formal contract but is instead focused on the fairness of the situation and the prevention of an unjust outcome. The key consideration is whether, under the specific circumstances, it would be unjust for the party who received the benefit to retain it without paying for its value.