D. The Issues
 The appeal raises the following issues:
(1) What is the correct interpretation and application of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Soulos?
(2) Did the application judge err in finding the respondent had
made out her claim in unjust enrichment?
(3) Did the application judge err in finding that the deceased
had made an equitable assignment of the insurance proceeds to the respondent?
 I address the third issue briefly. I agree with my colleague, for the reasons he gives, that the application judge erred
in finding that the deceased made an equitable assignment of
the policy and its proceeds to the respondent. But, in my view,
the error does not affect the outcome. As I will explain, once the
application judge found unjust enrichment, it was open to him to
immediately impose a remedial constructive trust on the life
insurance proceeds. He did not need to find some other equitable
mechanism like equitable assignment before doing so.
 The application judge’s critical findings are very clear
and well supported by the evidence: the deceased and the
respondent entered into an oral agreement by which she would
pay the premiums on the life insurance policy and receive the
proceeds upon his death; and the deceased behaved duplicitously
in irrevocably designating the appellant as the beneficiary of
 I begin with some observations on the underlying policy
tension in this area of the law, which in my view suffuses the
analysis of the substantive issues. I then consider the Soulos
decision and the issues in sequence.
The tension between law and equity
 In order to contextualize the ruling in Soulos, it is necessary to acknowledge a perennial tension in the common law tradition between, on the one hand, the formal demands of the law
as dispensed by the old common law courts, and, on the other
hand, the mercies of equity dispensed by the old chancery
courts. (Indeed, this tension helps explain some of the differences between my colleague and me.)