writ system — now abolished in this jurisdiction, Super.Ct.Civ.R. 2 — than with any substantive similarity. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that C.B. Snyder Realty stands only for the well-established proposition that where the parties have a contract governing an aspect of the relation between themselves, a court will not displace the terms of that contract and impose some other duties not chosen by the parties. This is. in accord with eases in this jurisdiction. See Wilderness Soc’y v. Cohen, 267 A.2d 820, 822 (D.C.1970) (“[Recovery under a theory of ... unjust enrichment ... is not available to [plaintiffs], because [forfeiture of the plaintiffs’ deposit with defendant] was expressly covered by the contract terms.”); Kilian v. Better Boxes, 121 A.2d 726, 728 (D.C.1956) (<HOLDING>). The present case, however, was not decided
holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment