In 1994, Schumacher and his wife and their two daughters moved to Finland, Minnesota, to operate a bar and restaurant called the Trestle Inn, which was owned by his parents. Schumacher claimed that his parents induced him to leave his previous job and to make the move by orally agreeing to (1) provide him a job managing the inn for life and (2) leave the business and a large parcel of land to him when his first parent died. Schumacher was given free reign in managing the inn and was allowed to retain all profits of the business but was not given any salary or wage. While he was operating the inn, Schumacher used his own funds to build a home for his familyon his parentsâ land, install a well, buy equipment for the business, and develop various marketing tools for the business. In the fall of 1998, Schumacher suspected that his parents were about to sell the inn and the adjoining property. He brought suit for a restraining order to prevent them from doing so, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment, among other claims. In October 1998, the parents notified Schumacher that his employment at the inn and his right to possess the adjoining property were terminated. The parents moved for summary judgment. The trial court held that Schumacherâs oral contract claim was invalid because the contract needed to be in writing under applicable Minnesota law. However, does Schumacher have a valid claim for unjust enrichment?