Civil Practice: Unjust Enrichment-Prejudgment Interest-Voluntary Payment Doctrine

(1)Where in a dispute arising from change orders to a construction contract, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling its motions for continuance and to amend, and the court properly entered judgment against the subcontractor for unjust enrichment because the judgment was supported by the evidence, and the voluntary payment doctrine did not bar recovery for unjust enrichment because the payment was made under duress, but the court erred in failing to award prejudgment interest because the accompanying letter stated that the payment was made under protest and the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to find that it constituted a demand of repayment.

(2)Where a contractor brought a claim of delay in a construction contract dispute, the trial court did not err in entering judgment in favor of the subcontractor because the evidence supported a finding that the contractor contributed to the delay by failing to provide the subcontractor with the necessary specifications in a timely manner, which slowed the subcontractor’s ability to timely secure materials.

Judgment is affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Newell Machinery Co. Inc. v. Pro Circuit Inc. (MLW No. 74598/Case No. WD82327 – 29 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Witt, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Midkiff, J. (Robert M. Pitkin, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant) (Benjamin N. Hutnick, Overland Park, Kansas, for respondent).