contract and tort law, with its application guided by the underlying principle of avoiding the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another. Ninth Dist. Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Ed Duggan, Inc., 821 P.2d 788, 795 (Colo.1991); Cablevision of Breckenridge, Inc. v. Tannhauser Condo. Ass’n, 649 P.2d 1093, 1097 (Colo.1982). In other jurisdictions, courts have held that a claim based on unjust enrichment can be predicated on either tort or contract law. Westwood Pharms., Inc. v. Nat’l Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp., 737 F.Supp. 1272, 1284-85 (W.D.N.Y.1990) (applying New York law and finding that an unjust enrichment claim predicated on defendants’ intentional or negligent acts sounded in tort); State, Dep’t of Human Servs. ex rel. Palmer v. Unisys Corp., 637 N.W.2d 142, 154 (Iowa 2001) (<HOLDING>); Peddinghaus v. Peddinghaus, 295 Ill.App.3d
holding that tjaking claims rarely arise under government contracts because the government acts in its commercial or proprietary capacity in entering contracts rather than in its sovereign capacity accordingly remedies arise from the contracts themselves rather than from the constitutional protection of private property rights holding that a breach of the duty of good faith is merely an element of a claim for recognized torts or breaches of contracts recognizing the doctrine of unenforceability of unconscionable contracts holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment can arise from contracts torts or other predicate wrongs recognizing doctrine