With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has received, instead, exactly what she contracted to receive, as rent on property she owns. Crossland has been paid precisely what Crossland contracted to be paid. An action for unjust enrichment cannot be used relieve a party from the terms of the contract it entered. See Kovtan v. Frederiksen, 449 So.2d 1, 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“It is well settled that the law will not imply a contract where an express contract exists concerning the same subject matter.”); Cf. Corn v. Greco, 694 So.2d 833, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“Quantum meruit relief is founded upon the legal fiction of an implied contract. This fiction cannot be maintained, however, when the rights of the parties are described in a written contract.”); Tobin & Tobin Ins. Agency v. Zeskind, 315 So.2d 518, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (<HOLDING>); George v. Tanner, 108 Idaho 40, 696 P.2d 891,

A: holding that where plaintiffs filed a complaint for conversion unjust enrichment and injunctive relief they had an adequate remedy at law
B: holding that erisa does not permit a plaintiff to assert an independent federal common law cause of action such as unjust enrichment to enforce the terms of an erisa plan thus to the extent plaintiffs third cause of action for unjust enrichment is brought pursuant to a federal common law right it must be dismissed
C: recognizing that action for quantum meruit relief exists to avoid unjust enrichment
D: holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment
C.