In a decision dated April 20, 2009, Justice Lowe, in connection with an action by Plaintiff-lender against Defendant-developer involving an alleged breach of a loan agreement, and on cross-motions for summary judgment, as well as Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answer and counterclaims, 1) denied Plaintiff’s motion on its breach-of-contract claim, finding that because the operative loan document merely constituted an offer by Defendant to enter into a loan agreement, which was not accepted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff had no right to recover the fees stated in the offer; 2) granted Defendant’s motion on its breach-of-contract claim, finding that because Plaintiff did not accept Defendant’s offer, Defendant was entitled to a return of its $55,000 deposit submitted with its offer; 3) dismissed Plaintiff’s unjust-enrichment claim, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish a value of services rendered for the benefit of and accepted by Defendant; 4) dismissed Defendant’s unjust-enrichment claim, finding that the subject of its claim was governed by the terms of the offer; 5) dismissed Defendant’s claim for conversion as duplicative of its breach-of-contract claim; 6) dismissed Defendant’s claim for declaratory judgment, finding that it had an adequate, alternative remedy in its breach-of-contract claim; 7) and denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for attorney’s fees, finding that because Plaintiff never accepted Defendant’s offer and because the parties never incurred expenses associated with making the loan, the attorney’s fee provision within the offer was not applicable.