Unjust enrichment is regulated under Articles 77-82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations. As specified by the law, unjust enrichment arises where property of a person obtained against the benefit of another person. According to the article 79/1, if the person enriched acting on goodwill demonstrates that he has handed over some part of the enrichment at the time the claim for restitution is brought, that person shall be held responsible for restitution of what he has not given away. The aim of this paper is to analyze the article 77 of the Turkish Code of Obligations from a legal perspective within the jurisprudence of the Turkish Court of Cassation, in relate to the scope of restitution and the application of unjust enrichment rules where the person enriched acting in goodwill. Court of Cassation Chambers have reached different outcomes regarding with the scope of restitution and the application of unjust enrichment rules where the person enriched acting in goodwill. In case the restitution is about money, Chambers 3, 7, and 22 have developed standards indicating that total disposal of the money at the time the claim is brought shall not exclude the person unjustly enriched to be held responsible for the restitution of the whole amount. On the contrary, Chambers 4 and 9 have established a different criterion; in case the matter of restitution is money, the court should exercise the discretion power and should determine the social affairs in the case before reaching a conclusion. This paper aims to set a framework for the restitution in the application of unjust enrichment rules and to determine the concept of goodwill in the light of the most recent jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation.