Legal Question in Business Law in California

Forget about it. You voluntarily sent in the information to the radio hosts.

Sorry, the unjust enrichment theory does not apply to information or ideas given gratuitously nor, in most instances, to volunteered services.

Also, there aren't any unjust enrichment statutes. Unjust enrichment is, however, a well-established legal concept or principle, originating in the courts of equity, under which a person who has received a benefit due to fraud, failure of a contract, or an implied contract (for example) may be required, as a remedy, to disgorge or return the benefit.

Courts have never extended the remedy in situations such as you describe. For example, if X is walking by Y's house one day and decides it needs painting, if he does paint it, he cannot expect Y to pay him, no matter how rich Y is nor how badly the house needed paint.

On the other hand, if Y, a pedestrian, is struck by a streetcar and knocked unconscious, and X, a medical doctor, gives first aid, Y will be expected to pay X the fair value of the treatment gratuitously rendered. The difference is the court will find that if Y had been conscious, he certainly would have requested treatment, whereas, in the house-paint situation, there was no emergency preventing X from asking Y to contract with him.

Another situation: Farmer A feeds farmer B's livestock one day because A thinks B forgot to do so, or would appreciate the help. No unjust enrichment. However, suppose B went to town and couldn't get back because of a huge blizzard. If A then feeds B's cattle, B wouldbe required to reimburse A for the cost of the feed, and possibly the value of A's labor, because otherwise B would be unjustly enriched.