when, for instance, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether an express agreement exists. Cascade Elec. Co. v. Rice, 70 Mich.App. 420, 426-27, 245 N.W.2d 774, 777 (1976) (finding that the plaintiff could bring both actions because the plaintiff performed work that was not contemplated under the express contract and the defendant disputed the existence of an express verbal contract). A party is not required to “elect to proceed under one theory or the other, but could seek recovery on the basis either of an express [ ] contract, or an implied contract if the [trier of fact] found that the express [ ] contract did not exist.” Id. at 427, 245 N.W.2d at 777; see also H.J. Tucker & Assocs., Inc. v. Allied Chucker & Eng’g Co., 234 Mich.App. 550, 573, 595 N.W.2d 176, 188 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff also may bring a breach of
holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim 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 holding that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not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 there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment