Contractor Payment Dispute Over Oral Modification and Unjust Enrichment

The dispute arose from a contractor's claim for payment for work performed under an oral agreement with a property owner, where the scope of the work had been extended beyond the initial understanding. The lower court rejected the claim for additional payment, relying on the fact that the contract was oral and lacked a precise written agreement for the modified work, despite acknowledging the actual execution of the extra services. The highest court quashed this decision, reasoning that even in the absence of a formal written modification, the principle of unjust enrichment, supported by proof that the extra work was both requested by the owner and beneficial to them, mandates that the contractor be compensated for the value of the services actually rendered.