Why is it not unjust enrichment to mistakenly fail to cancel a recurrent subscription charge?

Question

Alice accidentally transfers money to Charlotte but had intended to transfer it to herself and has a cause for unjust enrichment against Charlotte because she hadn’t intended to transfer it to her.

Bob subscribes to a monthly subscription service which is to come out of his account each month by direct debit. One day he goes into the account management portal intending to cancel his subscription and then logs out, thinking that he has successfully done so.

He then reviews his bank statements a few months later to find that he has been repeatedly charged on a monthly basis since then. He hasn’t made any use of the service and it is something with negligible variable costs such as a web based software service.

He did not intend to maintain this subscription for the last three months and didn’t realise that he had. He certainly didn’t wish to be tied to this subscription.

Does Bob not have q cause for unjust enrichment? If not, then what is different about these two scenarios?

Answer 1

If not, then what is different about these two scenarios?

Bob has a contract. Alice doesn't.

Bob thinks he cancelled the contract, but he didn't. His problem.

Answer 2

Company promised to make a service available in exchange for Bob's promise to pay money until he cancels the contract.

Company did what it promised under the contract and is therefore entitled to Bob's money. It is not unjust to have money that belongs to you.

Answer 3

Unjust enrichment has three elements: (1) an enrichment; (2) a corresponding deprivation; and (3) the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The existence of a contract would be a juristic reason for the enrichment, precluding a finding of unjust enrichment.

See generally Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834, 844:

As a matter of principle, the court will not allow any man unjustly to appropriate to himself the value earned by the labours of another. ... for the principle to succeed, the facts must display an enrichment, a corresponding deprivation, and the absence of any juristic reason — such as a contract or disposition of law — for the enrichment.

Answer 4

Restatement of Events

• Bob is Subscribed to a service and has a valid contract.
• One day he opens his subscription page.
• He sees the "Press here to end subscription" button.
• Bob wants to unsubscribe.
• He presses "Log Out" but never the unsubscribe button.

Subscription Corp can't know the state of Bob's mind

The company has no knowledge that Bob at any point wanted to unsubscribe. The mere fact that he opened his subscription page can't inform the company of Bob wanting to end the subscription.

As Bob never pressed the button, he never told the company that he wanted to end the contract. Absent of telling them in any way that he wanted to end the contract, the company can't know that he canceled.

Because he did not tell the company he wanted to cancel the contract, the contract runs on.

Because the contract runs on, there is no unjust enrichment - the failure to inform the company is on Bob, the company is entitled to the payment that is due under the contract.