allegations of a threat of continuing criminal conduct are vague and conclusory. But they have not cited the governing precedent accurately, omitting the proposition that continuity can be shown through longevity. Even if the allegations of continuing misconduct are insufficient, the plaintiffs have allege mits a pleader to include “a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.” Alternatively pleading an express contract and implied contract (whether styled as unjust enrichment or quantum meruit) is all ct claim and an unjust enrichment claim in cases where the defendant has “kept its options open, and may deny the existence of a contract.” Terry Barr Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock Co., Inc., 96 F.3d 174, 182 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). That is not the case here, though. The
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract 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 defrauded party may either choose to void the contract and recover paid consideration on an unjust enrichment theory or affirm the contract and pursue a breach of contract remedy 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that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force