In particular, we find four cases instructive on this point. First, in Conn-Barr, LLC v. Francis, 103 So. 3d 1208, 1208, 1210-14 (La. Ct. App. 2012), an enrichee-defendant sold its business to a third party, and the court held that this sale constituted a valid juridical act and that, therefore, the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim failed. Specifically, the plaintiff and defendant had signed a contract, which included a "finder's fee" under which the plaintiff would be paid for successfully locating an investor for the defendant's business.

Given the contractual void already established by the court, it found no unjust enrichment. 103 So.3d 1208 (La. 3 Cir. 2012). The instant case is not entirely dissimilar.

CONN–BARR, LLC v. Diana Istre FRANCIS.Prior report: La.App., 103 So.3d 1208 In re Conn–Barr, LLC;—Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 2011–162; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 12–348.

The plaintiff's argument under La. C.C. art. 2298 necessarily fails under the definition of "without cause." SeeConn-Barr, LLC v. Francis, 2012-348 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 11/7/12), 103 So.3d 1208, 1214, writ denied, 2013-0227 (La. 3/8/13), 109 So.3d 364. Courts may resort to equity only in cases of unjust enrichment for which there is no justification in law or contract. Edmonston v. A-Second Mortgage Co. of Slidell, 289 So.2d 116, 122 (La. 1974).