Abstract
Abstract There are two principal accounts of the normative foundations of unjust enrichment. The first holds that the plaintiff's right to restitution for unjust enrichment is a claim in corrective justice. The second holds that the plaintiff's right vindicates a set of values to which our legal system is committed. This chapter unpacks what is at issue in the debate between these two accounts, and the chapter sets that debate in two contexts. The first is the main justificatory puzzle posed by the claim in unjust enrichment, which puzzle is brought into relief by asking whether the right to restitution for unjust enrichment is primary or secondary. The second context is a set of linked foundational issues in political philosophy and private law theory, issues that it is argued are engaged by the question: What justifies liability in unjust enrichment?
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
