Oh. I was thinking it might be like this part "On this analysis, the defendant is obliged to make restitution if there is no 'basis' for her receipt: for example, because the contract under which the defendant received the benefit was void ab initio."
Obviously, i wouldn't offer a contract that lets someone take an unlimited amount of money and only deduct the amount of the first transaction, and the withdrawer clearly knew this. Not true?
First, it would not be void ab initio.
Past that, your issue is that the express terms of the contract appear to allow that, so you will lose regardless of whether that was a good idea for you to do :P
You could argue breach of good faith, etc, but not unjust enrichment.
Like restitution, unjust enrichment is a theory of implied contracts.
You can plead it and breach of express contract at the same time, but you can only recover for one, and you will not recover for unjust enrichment if the court finds an express contract.
Obviously, i wouldn't offer a contract that lets someone take an unlimited amount of money and only deduct the amount of the first transaction, and the withdrawer clearly knew this. Not true?