Hot Lights breached its contract with Weatherford by failing to provide the full amount of lighting required in the contract. However, Hot Light contends that the trial court erred in concluding that Weatherford did not receive any benefit from Hot Lights’ performance and dismissing its quantum meruit claim. It alleges that “it is entitled to recover the damages it incurred in partial performance of a contract, even if that contract is unenforceable.” This equitable doctrine “imposes a duty, not as a result of any agreement, whether express or implied, but in spite of the absence of an agreement, when one party receives unjust enrichment at the expense of another. In determining if the doctrine applies, we focus not on the intention of the parties, but rather on whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched. A party who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must make restitution to the other for the value of the goods provided or the services performed.” Is this true? The chapter has looked at the application of promissory estoppel and UCC contracts. Does unjust enrichment apply as well?