the burden of proving (1) that the defendant was enriched, (2) that such enrichment was at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) “that the circumstances were such that in equity or good conscience [the defendant] should return the money or property to [the plaintiff].” Martin v. Martin, 54 V.I. 379, 394 (V.I. 2010) (citing Gov’t Guarantee Fund of Republic of Finland v. Hyatt Corp., 955 F. Supp. 441, 460, 35 V.I. 356 (D. V.I. 1997)). However, this Court summarily adopted those elements of unjust enrichment by citing a single District Court of the Virgin Islands case, without determining whether that rule represents the sounder rule for the Virgin Islands. See Gov’t of the V.I. v. Connor, 60 V.I. 599, 607 n.1 (V.I. 2014); Banks v. Int’l Rental & Leasing Corp., 55 V.I. 967, 979 (V.I. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, after this Court issued its Martin
recognizing that a trial judge can implicitly find a prosecutors proffered reasons credible recognizing that a construction contract implicitly imposes a duty on contractors to perform work according to the standard of due care recognizing wrongful adoption cause of action grounded in fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation recognizing that the legislature implicitly repealed 1 vic  4 through its adoption of 4 vic  21 in 2004 recognizing this purpose albeit implicitly