In Rains v. Arnett (1961) 189 Cal. App. 2d 337, the plaintiff leased equipment from defendant. In exchange for credit toward lease payments, plaintiff paid for major repairs to the equipment on defendant's behalf. When the lease expired, the lease credits did not add up to the amount of the repair bills and plaintiff sued for money had and received. Defendant argued that plaintiff could not properly sue on that theory. The appellate court stated: "While the facts produced indicate that the more appropriate common count would have been to allege money paid out for the benefit of defendant and at his request, we are convinced that a reversal of the judgment on this technical defense would be of no avail to defendant or result in a different judgment than that rendered. . . .. . . .'Except that total variance, whereby a party's proof is entirely different from his pleading, has not been permitted, the key to any problem of variance is the question of prejudice. If the pleading could be amended to embrace the variant proof, and the appellant is not misled to his prejudice, variance is not material.' We conclude that under the circumstances and the facts of this case, and under the finding of the trial court and the evidence produced, the judgment based upon the common count as pleaded was justified and defendant was not prejudiced by the form of pleading." ( Id. at pp. 344-345.)