
    ALLIED CAPITAL CORPORATION and Allied Capital SBLC Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Hawley Properties, L.L.C., doing business as Silver Lake Car Wash; Holly C. Hawley; Debaeke Properties, L.L.C., doing business as Sunset Lake Properties, doing business as Lee S. Debaeke; Conex, Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LARRY BUILTE CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-1081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Nov. 19, 2004.
    
      Robert G. Kamenec, A. Benjamin Henson, Plunkett & Cooney, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Gary H. Cunningham, James T. Dunn, StrobI, Cunningham, Caretti & Sharp, Bloomfield Hills, MI, Amy J. Denise, Damion G. Frasier, Shedd, Frasier & Gross-man, Flushing, MI, Michael J. Gildner, Simen, Figura & Parker, Flint, MI, for Third Party-Appellants.
    Before: SUTTON and COOK, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Ann Aldrich, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Building contractor Larry Builte Construction, Inc. appeals from the “Bench Trial Opinion and Order” of the district court resolving a payment dispute among Builte, the construction projects’ owner-developers, and Builte’s excavation subcontractor. The district court rejected Builte’s breach-of-contract claim against the owner-developers, but awarded it damages under a theory of unjust enrichment for its partial completion of the projects. Builte now challenges both aspects of the decision, arguing that it deserves contract damages and that the court failed to award it sufficient damages based on unjust enrichment when the court did not order the owner-developers to pay enough to cover what Builte still owes its electrical and plumbing subcontractors.

Having had the benefit of oral argument and having studied Builte’s brief (the lone brief filed in this case), the joint appendix, and the applicable law, we are persuaded that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings and that it appropriately applied the law to those facts. The issuance of a further detailed written opinion by this court would therefore be largely duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the aspects of the district court’s judgment that Builte appealed for the reasons set forth in that court’s opinion.  