1. In a restitutionary action, can the administratrix of the 84-year-old man's estate, a surviving sister, recover on behalf of the estate either all or part of the $20,000 paid to the geriatric company on September 25?

C is correct. Restitution generally is not available to recover a benefit conferred pursuant to a valid and binding contract. When determining whether a contract may be unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability, the fairness of the exchange is determined as of the time that the contract was entered into. Although the price of $20,000 may seem unfair as of October 2, the risk that the 84-year-old man would die within a short period was one that he assumed when he entered into the contract on September 25.

A is incorrect. The benefit was conferred pursuant to a binding contract. Restitution is generally used to prevent unjust enrichment in a case where a non-breaching party partly performs before the other party breaches the contract. Restitution is generally not available in a fact pattern like this one where this is a valid binding contract.

B is incorrect. There was no frustration of purpose. Courts will generally look to the allocation of risk in order to decide if the doctrine of frustration applies. This is the concept that the more foreseeable the event is, the more likely the court will be to conclude that the risk was implicitly allocated to the party who, according to the structure of the contract, would lose most or all of the benefit of the bargain. In this fact pattern, the man was given care for the remainder of his life.

D is incorrect because the company may enforce the contract at law and does not need to show detrimental reliance.