When you say that the BSI/Reisenfeld situation met the requirements for quasi-contracts under Ohio law, what were those requirements and how did they apply here? Why would this not be a case of actual contract?

When you say that the BSI/Reisenfeld situation met the requirements for quasi-contracts under Ohio law, what were those requirements and how did they apply here? Why would this not be a case of actual contract?
In terms of how this compares to the subcontractor analogy, is it really fair to compare them? After all, BSI didn’t just not pay Network, they had paid them a lot of money and were excused from further payments because Network had defrauded them. On balance Network owed them money. That means that Network had already received everything they were due from BSI. What do you think?
I’m a little confused by what you say about whether or not the decision of the court follows the golden rule. You say: ” Since Reisenfeld benefited BSI, it would be unethical and unfair for the BSI to retain the benefit and fail to pay Network for it.” Didn’t the court decide that BSI had to pay? If that’s true, wouldn’t that mean that the decision does follow the golden rule?
UPD: Information from the additional file is from previous order (it may be useful for you, but not obligatory to use)
UPD UPD!!! : That’s the previous work that’s been working on it:
The court does not see this case as an actual contract but a quasi-contract because of Builders Square, Inc (BSI) involvement (Reisenfeld & Co. v. Network Group). Further, the case had the elements of quasi-contract claim under the Ohio law. It would be unjust for the BSI to retain the benefit without paying Reisenfeld for it.
Q2.
The court also relies on the contractors and subcontractors case law to find precedents and support for compensating Reisenfeld. It states that when the owner has not paid the contractor who correspondingly has not paid the subcontractor for job aspect at hand, the subcontractor has the right to request the owner to make payment under the unjust enrichment theory (Beatty and Samuelson, 2014).
Q3.
The decision of this court does not seem to follow the golden rule guidelines that states that “Do unto others as you would have done to you.” The sole shareholder of the network criminal action negatively affected the BSI, and yet, the unethical actions of BSI negatively affected Reisenfeld. Since Reisenfeld benefited BSI, it would be unethical and unfair for the BSI to retain the benefit and fail to pay Network for it.
Q4.
An example of a quasi-contract can occur when a web developer and an organization enter into a contract, which states that the web developer is to create a content management system only. However, the web developer then decides to perform extra work outside the contract scope such as training employees how to use the system. The organization is only entitled to pay the services of installing the content management system only, but not for the additional work. In this case, the web developer may have a quasi-contract to recover losses incurred.