The plaintiff claimed that she transferred ownership of a cleaning services franchise to the defendant temporarily, with an agreement that it would be returned after six months.
The defendant maintained that the transfer was permanent and that the only agreement was that he would provide work opportunities to the plaintiff and her sons in the future.
After assessing conflicting testimony, documentary evidence, and credibility of witnesses, the court preferred the defendant’s version of events.
The court found that the transfer was intended to be permanent and that there was no agreement requiring the defendant to return the franchise.
The plaintiff therefore failed to establish unjust enrichment or breach of agreement.
