## Facts

- Marianne Schlosser owned a video rental store operating as Select-A-Video.
- The store allowed employees to take videotapes home without paying a rental fee or formally checking them out.
- On October 5, 1987, Rhonda Welk (then an employee) put eight videotapes in her car to take home under the employee policy.
- Later that day, Welk was terminated but nonetheless kept the eight tapes and took them home.
- Welk retained the tapes for more than two months and returned them on December 10, 1987 after finding them in a closet while cleaning.
- Welk testified that neither she nor her family watched the tapes, and there was no evidence of actual use.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court found an implied contract/quasi-contract and awarded Schlosser $549, calculated as the full rental value for the entire period of possession.

## Issues

1. Whether Welk was unjustly enriched by retaining the videotapes after termination despite no proof of actual use.
2. If so, whether restitution could be measured by the full rental value for the entire possession period.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court held Welk was unjustly enriched because she had the tapes available for her use without paying.
- The court held the trial court’s damages award was excessive and unsupported by the evidence.
- The court reduced the award to one day’s rental fee per tape (plus tax), totaling $9.
- Judgment affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Unjust enrichment (quasi-contract) permits restitution where a defendant receives a benefit and it would be unjust to retain it without payment.
- A “benefit” may include possession of property with the opportunity to use it without cost, even absent proof of actual use.
- Restitution must correspond to the benefit actually shown or reasonably inferred from the evidence; it may not function as a windfall.
- The plaintiff bears the burden to prove the amount of enrichment and a reasonable measure of restitution.

## Conclusion

Welk’s post-termination possession of the tapes conferred a compensable benefit because the tapes were available for her use, but without evidence of actual viewing or lost rentals, equity limited restitution to a modest, evidence-based amount rather than the full rental value for the entire retention period.


Schlosser v. Welk, 550 N.E.2d 241 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)