ways for a claimant to prove unjust enrichment (e.g., mistake, coercion, request). The conclusion that wrongful conduct by the owner is not the sine qua non fo case, so the “initiate or encourage the transaction” requirement in Duggan, while relevant, may not be disposi-tive. See Cedar Lane Invs. v. American Roofing Supply of Colorado Springs, 919 P.2d 879, 885 (Colo.App.1996) (distinguishing the rule in Duggan because no statutory scheme was in place in this case). Furthermore, while several out-of-state cases have required some deceitful conduct by the landlord in cases involving restitution claims, see maj. op. at 122-123, several other courts, including our own court of appeals, have not. See Frank M. Hall & Co. v. Southwest Properties Venture, 747 P.2d 688, 691 (Colo.App.1987) (<HOLDING>); Murdock-Bryant Constr., Inc. v. Pearson, 146
holding that an unjust enrichment claim could exist where landlord took an active role in completion of construction work holding that the purchaser could sustain a 93a claim against the president and vicepresident of a manufacturing company because they took an active role in the dealings with the plaintiff holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that an employer need not accommodate with indefinite leave an employee who is unable to return to work in any role holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury