recovery in this case is consistent with Duggan. There we held that the trial court improperly instructed the jury and should have informed the jury: It is not inequitable for a secured creditor to retain a benefit conferred by an unsecured creditor without compensating the unsecured creditor if the secured creditor does not initiate or encourage the transaction between the unsecured creditor and the debtor by which that benefit is conferred. Duggan, 821 P.2d at 800. Nowhere in Dug-gan did we indicate that encouraging the transaction must be wrongful. I note that the “initiate or encourage the transaction” requirement in Duggan applied to a situation where an unjust enrichment claim undermined the predictability of the priority of creditors created by a statutory scheme. See id. at 797 (<HOLDING>). There is no applicable statutory scheme in
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that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment holding that declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted notwithstanding that plaintiff did not assert a copyright claim holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory holding that unjust enrichment claim could prevail contrary to the ucc priority system