Unjust Enrichment Research Articles

Glosa do uchwały SN (7) z 22.7.2020 r., III CZP 31/19 Objęcie pojęciem kosztów z art. 444 § 1 zd 1 KC opieki sprawowanej nieodpłatnie nad poszkodowanym

The gloss analyzes the arguments of the Supreme Court regarding the claim for reimbursement under Art. 444 § 1 sentence 1 of the Civil Code "costs" of care provided free of charge by a relative. The author argues with the position of the Supreme Court and opposes this form of objectification. It adopts the effective concept of harm, according to which it is not the infringement itself that is harm, but only its effects on the victim's property. He also believes that in the case of unpaid care, there is no harm to be remedied, either on the side of the directly injured person or on the side of the guardian. The future nature of the disability pension due to increased needs, due under Art. 444 § 2 of the Civil Code, allows it to cover only the forecasted detriment. This is not the case for a claim for reimbursement that is only related to the past. If the claim for reimbursement under Art. 444 § 1 sentence 1 of the Civil Code covered future damages, then the second sentence in this provision would be superfluous. As an alternative to the criticized position of the Supreme Court, the author proposes a claim for unjust enrichment, which, however, serves the caregiver and not the direct victim.

Private law, public right, and the law of unjust enrichment

ABSTRACT Unjust enrichment continues to fascinate and frustrate. While it is clear that unjust enrichment is a form of private law liability distinct from that found in property, contract, or tort, it remains stubbornly difficult to articulate its underlying normative basis. In this paper I suggest that some headway can be made on this problem by appealing to a distinction between principles of private right and principles of public right. Relying on Ernest Weinrib’s helpful development of this interesting Kantian idea I argue that the law of unjust enrichment may very well manifest principles reflective of public right’s requirement of systematicity. On this view unjust enrichment provides courts with supplemental decision-making principles that permit the suspension of valid principles of private law while leaving the underlying logic of those principles intact.

Restitution to Africa: Unjust Enrichment and Damages from Imperial, Colonial, and Post Colonial Abuse of Dominance

Most of Africa struggles to improve daily life, and reduce or eliminate deep poverty. Household income and wealth are stuck at low levels. Public policies are unable to accelerate investment and growth, employment creation, and food production and security, housing, health care, and educational access and success, for the majority. The Fundamental, underlying reason for these lagging conditions is 500 years of unjust enrichment by Western, Northern, and lately, Asian actors. They abused their dominance, and captured excess benefits from trade, investment and other activities. The author proposes the orderly, disciplined, targeted return of the $20–$40 trillion of unjust enrichment, in grants to sectors identified as key to economic development.

Semblance and Separation: Comparing the Law of Unjust Enrichment in Hong Kong and England

Abstract This article provides a comparative overview of the current law of unjust enrichment in Hong Kong, examining how this body of law developed and diverged from its original English roots. Unjust enrichment law in Hong Kong largely mirrors that in England, retaining its nature as a subsidiary cause of action and the four-stage framework for unjust enrichment: (i) enrichment of the defendant; (ii) at the expense of the claimant; (iii) unjust factor; and (iv) defences. Most of the elements of the four-stage framework also follow the English approach, apart from defences to unjust enrichment. In this regard, the legal position in Hong Kong differs from that of England in several ways. The ‘wrongdoer’ and ‘bad faith’ bars to the change of position defence are interpreted far more broadly in Hong Kong. This divergence is unfortunately problematic, as it involves a misreading of previous English jurisprudence, leads to harsh results, and significantly limits the ability of the change of position defence to support the development of the law of restitution. The illegality defence in Hong Kong also differs by following the previous ‘reliance principle’ in Tinsley v Milligan, rather than the ‘range of factors’ approach in Patel v Mirza, especially due to the uncertainty engineered by the latter approach.

LIABILITY TO DISGORGE PROFITS UPON BREACH OF CONTRACT OR A DELICT

Remedies regarding contract and tort are, generally speaking, concerned with the incidence of liability for loss or damage suffered, whereas the claim in unjust enrichment is said to require that the enrichment has occurred at the expense of the creditor. Consequently claims for breach of contract and tort are brought for damages. The following claims will, however, be denied: profits from the party who breached thecontract, the tortfeasor or which the otherwise unjustly enriched defendant has gained as a result of breaching the contract, committing the tort or invading the rights of the plaintiff. There are, however, numerous exceptions to this general rule to be found in various jurisdictions. Consequently the question arises whether these exceptions do or do not amount to a new general rule concerning disgorgement of illegally obtained profits.

The Position of Consideration in Nepal: A Study of Theories, Cases, and Laws

Lawful consideration is one of the essential elements of a valid contract. However, The National Civil Code, 2017 A.D. (2074 B.S.) has not included a definition of consideration, and it has not stated the necessity of consideration in Nepal in a particular section. Nevertheless, it seems that the Code has realized the importance of lawful consideration in the provisions of contracts of rent, wage and hire purchase. The Code has also stated unjust enrichment, under which one party should not enrich himself or herself at the cost of others or other’s property. Conversely, the now-repealed Contract Act, 2000, in its section 2(d), had defined consideration and stated that consideration must be lawful in section 13(k). In the cases decided by the Supreme Court of Nepal (Bhagwan Lal Shah v. Harka Lal Giri and Chitra Bahadur Karki; Proprietor of Manakamana Construction and Concerns Pvt. Ltd v. Maniram Aggrawal, Proprietor of Aggrawal Industries Pvt. Ltd.), the Supreme Court has issued the precedent stating the importance of consideration in Nepal in regard to Contract Act, 2000 which has now been repealed and replaced by The National Civil Code 2017. Additionally, different theories of the contract like bargain theory, realistic interpretation, theory of reciprocity, ‘nundum pactum’ theory and ‘no consideration no contract’ theory also emphasize the importance of consideration in Contract. Finally, this research paper has proven that consideration is essential in Nepal, thereby stating the theories of consideration, the legislative provisions, and the cases. Furthermore, the researcher came to the conclusion that the lawful consideration is essential in Nepal and it should be dealt with like oxygen to humans and whether written or not, must be implicitly understood. The word ‘consideration’ not explicitly being mentioned in law should not create confusion that a contract can happen without lawful consideration.

Distribution of foundation assets to another foundation or trust—powers of the trustees and claims based on unjust enrichment

Abstract The article deals with fundamental questions regarding the distribution carried out by a Liechtenstein foundation to another foundation and/or trust instead of a direct distribution to the beneficiaries. In principle, this phenomenon partly falls under the concept that is labelled as ‘decanting’ within the private client law community. One of the key advantages of foundations as compared to other instruments is the high level of stability combined with very limited instruments to change the purpose as well as the beneficial interest. As with trusts, the ‘decanting’ in the field of the private foundation practice seems to be a method to adjust the set-up of the vehicle, leaving old provisions behind that might no longer be compatible with the changed circumstances of the founder’s/settlor’s family. The article deals with the different legal issues involved, such as the ultra-vires-doctrine as well as the relevant issues of unjust enrichment. Finally, the author gives guidelines for practitioners by discussing the recent developments in Liechtenstein case law.

Actions in the Interest of Others Without Commission: Problems of Theory and Practice

The article discusses the conditions for qualifying actions in someone else’s interest without a mandate and the requirements that must be met in order to obtain the right to reimburse the expenses incurred. The problems that arise in judicial practice during the qualification of these actions are identified. A comparative analysis of obligations arising from actions in the interest of others, and obligations from unjust enrichment. The author concluded that obligations from actions in the interests of others and obligations from unjust enrichment should not be mixed, and therefore there was a need to develop more clearly defined criteria to distinguish between the scope of these obligations.

Unjustified enrichment in the Chinese Civil Code: questions from the common law

ABSTRACT Unjustified enrichment in Chinese law has been substantially expanded in recent years by the Chinese Civil Code, as well as by other primary and secondary sources, making comparative studies more viable. This article asks a number of questions about the Chinese law through the lens of a common lawyer. One is the use of the heading ‘quasi-contract’ to describe the chapter of the Code in which the unjustified enrichment provisions are contained. Another concerns the distinction between ‘restitution’ and ‘unjustified enrichment’. A third asks whether the Code should have enshrined a rule prohibiting restitution of the use value, while a fourth concerns the issue of indirect enrichments. Yet another question concerns the inclusion of cases of qualified intent, while the last focuses on defences.

Legal Features of the Provisions of Unjust Enrichment in Jordanian Civil Law and Comparative Law

Abstract Unjust enrichment is considered one source of obligations, which stands in contrast to harmful acts as another source of obligation in the Jordanian Civil Code (JCC). The Unjust Enrichment Rule has developed historically from Roman law, through Islamic jurisprudence, then French law and jurisprudence to modern laws, such as that in Egypt influenced by French law. All these laws have recognised the Unjust Enrichment Rule as an independent source of obligation. Although the JCC was influenced by Islamic jurisprudence, Arab laws, such as the Egyptian Civil Code, and foreign-influenced Arab laws, its features distinguish it from other laws, either in terms of naming the source or the details related to its legal provisions. JCC’s special features need to be highlighted, defined and evaluated for comparison with other laws, i.e., proving beneficial when enacting a new JCC or defining it as unique rather than a copy of other precedent Arab laws.

The effects of the new Feed-In Tariff Act for solar photovoltaic (PV) energy in the wake of the Fukushima accident in Japan

In 2012, the Japanese government launched the new Feed-In Tariff Act (FIT), which aimed at promoting the stable, integrated rise of renewable energy in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy on both the residential (installation capacity less than 10 kW) and non-residential side (installation capacity 10 kW and above) has been associated with significant benefits with the passage of the new FIT Act. However, a number of issues have emerged during implementation, including unjust enrichment from delayed PV plant operation and high renewable energy taxes. In this paper, we present an overview of the evolution of the FIT and explore how the relevant issues have been addressed through revised government policy. The paper also examines, the FIT’s effect on PV energy development. An economic analysis was conducted to identify the impact of FIT fixed price changes on the profitability of solar PV plants on both the residential and non-residential side from 2012 to 2019. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted based on scenarios of future FIT fixed purchase price reductions and PV initial investment cost reductions. The results show that the FIT can potentially be reduced on the residential side and that the current FIT has reached its feasibility limits in terms of non-residential PV investments.

The Occupation Without Permission and Unjust Enrichment of the Section for Common Use of Condominium Buildings -Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Da220774 Decided May 21, 2020-

이 논문의 제목은 “집합건물 공용부분의 무단점유와 부당이득-대법원 2020. 5. 21. 선고 2017다220744 전원합의체 판결 -” 이라고 정하였다. 현행 민법 제741조는 “법률상 원인 없이 타인의 재산 또는 노무로 인하여 이익을 얻고 이로 인하여 타인에게 손해를 가한 자는 그 이익을 반환하여야 한다.”라고 규정하고 있다. 이와 관련하여 집합건물 공용부분을 무단 점유할 경우에 종래 대법원 판례는 집합건물의 공용부분이 구조상 점포로 사용하는 등 별개의 용도로 사용하거나 임대할 수 있는 대상이 아니므로 특별한 사정이 없는 한 구분소유자 중 일부가 권원 없이 이를 점유·사용하더라도 다른 구분소유자에게 차임 상당의 이익을 상실하는 손해가 발생하다고 볼 수 없다고 판시하였다. 그런데 대상판결은 정당한 권원 없이 공용부분을 사용할 경우에 부당이득이 인정될 수 있는 것으로 판시함으로서 종래의 판결을 변경하였다. 이번 대상판결은 관련 분쟁에 대하여 합리적 논거를 제시하는 부분도 있지만, 일부 쟁점의 경우에는 확대해석하게 된다면 타당성을 결여한 부분도 있는 것으로 보이므로 이를 유형화하여 검토하였다.

Nokia and World Comm: The Conundrum of Receiving Global Discounts

The ECJ’s World Comm decision deals with adjustments resulting from rebates granted globally by a Finnish company (Nokia) to a Romanian company (World Comm) without distinguishing between those referring to intra-Community transactions and those affecting domestic transactions. In this article, the author examines whether the decision issued by the ECJ results in an unjust enrichment of the tax authorities that audited the taxable person.

La naturaleza jurídica y caracteres de la acción del artículo 669 inciso 1° del Código Civil chileno

In the present work the legal nature of the action established on article 669 paragraph 1° of the Chilean Civil Code is explored; even though it seems to be agreement as to what a restitutionary reimbursement is, this is not asserted enough, which generates difficulties at the judicial level. Indeed, concerning the action of reimbursement granted by article 669 paragraph 1°, no distinction has been drawn between the restitutionary and compensatory character of the norm. Having an unduly property allocation taken place, the principle of unjustified enrichment imposes the obligation of restituting, thus not being required a correlative impoverishment in order to claim the restitutionary reimbursement, since the action is not aimed at compensating the impoverished, but to recovered the unduly assigned enrichment, this way, regarding the studied action the stress muss shift from the amount of the impoverishment to the effective amount of the enrichment, so as not to apply the compensatory logic to the restitutionary reimbursement.

과오배당과 부당이득반환 청구에 관한 연구 - 대법원 2019. 7. 18. 선고 2014다206983 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -

배당을 받아야 할 채권자가 배당을 받지 못한 경우 배당기일 에서 이의진술과 그에 따른 배당이의의 소로써 배당을 받지 못 할 자이면서 배당을 받은 자를 상대로 자신의 실체법상 권리를 주장할 수 있다. 그런데 배당이의의 소는 제소권자를 ‘배당기일 에 이의를 진술한 채권자나 채무자’에 한정하고 제소기간을 ‘1 주일’이라는 짧은 기간으로 정하는 등 그 행사요건을 엄격하게 정하고 있을 뿐 아니라, 배당이의에 관계된 당사자들 사이의 상 대적인 해결을 도모하는 데 그치기 때문에, 당초 권리 없는 피 고를 제외하고 배당을 실시하였을 경우 받을 수 있었던 배당액 이상을 원고가 보유하도록 하는 결과가 생길 수 있다. 민사집행 법 제155조는 ‘이의한 채권자가 제154조 제3항의 기간(배당이 의의 소제기 증명서류 제출기간)을 지키지 않은 경우에도 배당 표에 따른 배당을 받은 채권자에 대하여 소로 우선권 및 그 밖 의 권리를 행사하는 데 영향을 미치지 않는다.’고 정하고 있는 바, 배당을 받지 못한 채권자가 배당을 받지 못할 자이면서 배 당을 받은 자를 상대로 부당이득반환 청구를 할 수 있는지 문 제된다. 대법원 2019. 7. 18. 선고 2014다206983 전원합의체 판결은 집행권원을 소지한 채권자, 임금채권 등 우선변제권자 및 가압 류채권자와 같이 배당요구를 하여야 하는 채권자(민사집행법 제88조 제1항, 제148조 제2호)의 경우에는 배당요구 유무에 따 라 부당이득반환 청구를 인정한다. 이 경우 배당요구를 하였다 면 배당이의 여부 또는 배당표의 확정 여부는 묻지 않는다. 한 편, 배당요구가 불필요한 채권자(민사집행법 제148조 제1호․제3 호․제4호)의 경우 배당요구나 배당이의 여부를 불문하고 부당이 득반환 청구를 인정한다. 그러나 배당요구를 하여야 하는 채권자 중 집행력 있는 정본 을 가진 채권자나 첫 경매개시결정이 등기된 뒤에 가압류를 한 채권자의 경우에는 민사집행법 제155조의 문언에 따라 배당이 의한 경우에만 부당이득반환 청구가 허용된다고 봄이 타당하다. 입법론적으로 배당이의의 소를 제기한 사실을 증명하는 서류를 제출하는 기간을 지나치게 단기로 설정하였음을 비판할 수 있 음은 별론으로 하고, 우리의 입법자는 민사집행법 제155조를 통하여 정책적으로 부당이득반환청구의 제소권자를 이의한 채 권자로 한정하였다고 새겨야 한다. 집행권원 소지채권자나 가압 류채권자는 배당요구를 하여야 하는 채권자로서 이미 절차의 진행에 대하여 충분히 알고 있었거나 알고 있어야 하는 사람이 기 때문에 부당이득반환 청구를 위한 전제로서 배당이의를 요 한다고 하여 가혹한 것이 아니며, 그와 같이 해석하는 것이 배 당문제를 둘러싼 분쟁의 만성화 방지에 도움이 된다.

부동산 담보권실행경매에서 경매절차 하자로 인한 부당이득반환청구: 담보권 소멸 사안을 중심으로 - 독일법과의 비교 고찰 -

경매절차의 하자로 인한 부당이득반환 문제에 있어서 선결문제는 경매절차 매수인의 소유권 취득 여부이다. 우리 법상 경매로 인한 소유권취득은 승계취득이고(민법 제578조 참조), 강제경매 절차와 담보권실행경매 절차는 별도로 규율되어 있다. 양자는 거의 전적인 준용규정(민사집행법 제268조 참조)에도 불구하고 강제집행절차를 추동하는 집행권원 요부에 있어서 결정적인 차이가 있고 그에 따라 경매절차 매수인의 소유권취득 여부 문제도 달리 처리되고 있다. 그 결과 담보권실행경매에 있어서 담보권의 부존재·무효 또는 소멸 등과 같은 경매절차 하자로 인한 부당이득반환의 문제는 매수인의 소유권취득을 전제로 하는 강제경매와는 다르게 복잡한 양상으로 전개된다.<BR> 우선 담보권이 부존재하거나 무효인 사안의 경우 경매절차가 무효이고 이에 따라 경매목적물의 소유권을 취득하지 못한 매수인이 배당수령자를 상대로 부당이득반환청구를 해야 한다. 반면에 담보권이 성립하고 소멸된 사안의 경우에는 민사집행법 제276조의 적용범위가 문제되는데, 판례에 의하면 담보권의 소멸 시기에 따라 매수인의 소유권취득 여부가 달라지고, 그에 따라 부당이득반환의 문제도 달리 처리된다. 즉 경매개시결정 전에 담보권이 소멸되면, 경매는 무효이고 그에 따라 담보권이 부존재 또는 무효인 사안과 마찬가지로 매수인이 배당수령자를 상대로 부당이득반환청구를 해야 한다. 반면에 경매개시결정 후에 담보권이 소멸되면 매수인의 소유권 취득에는 영향이 없어서, 이로 인해 소유권을 상실한 채무자 등이 수익자인 저당권자를 상대로 부당이득반환청구를 해야 한다.<BR> 그런데 비교법적 검토 결과 독일법은 달리 처리되고 있음이 확인된다. 독일법에서는 경락인의 경매로 인한 소유권취득을 국가고권에 의한 원시취득으로 구성하고, 강제경매의 경우뿐만 아니라 담보권실행경매의 경우에도 집행권원(실무상 집행증서가 주로 활용된다)을 요구함으로써 경매절차의 안정성을 강하게 도모한다. 그에 따라 부당이 득반환의 문제는 강제경매이든 담보권실행경매이든 경매절차가 유효인 한 경락인의 소유권취득을 전제로 채무자와 배당금을 받은 채권자 사이에서 이루어지게 된다. 이와 같이 경매로 인한 소유권취득의 법적 성질과 집행권원 요부의 차이는 경락인의 소유권 인정 여부의 차이로 귀결되고, 이로 인해 경매절차 하자로 인한 부당이득반환문제의 처리에 있어서 우리법과 차이가 나타난다.<BR> 경매의 법적 성질에 관한 차이는 별론으로 하더라도, 우리나라에서 담보권실행경매에서 집행권원을 요구하지 않는 태도는 기본적으로 담보권실행경매는 그것이 국가에 의해 실행된다고 하더라도, 이는 당사자가 설정한 담보권에 내재된 환가권(민법 제363조 제1항 참조)의 실행을 어디까지나 국가가 ‘대행’한다고 보는 것에서 기인한다. 다만 담보권실행경매의 경우에도 법원이 개입한다는 점에서 민사집행법 제267조에서 경매절차의 안정성을 위해 “담보권 소멸”의 경우 경매절차 유효성을 전제로 매수인 소유권취득의 효력을 인정하고 있으나, 판례는 담보권실행경매의 이러한 특성을 고려하여 국가기관인 법원이 본격적으로 경매절차를 주도하기 시작하는 경매개시결정 후의 담보권소멸의 경우에만 이를 제한적으로 적용하고 있다. 이러한 제한적 해석은, 독일과 같이 담보권실행경매의 경우에도 집행권원을 요구하여 양자를 동질화하는 근본적인 법개정이 없는 한, 현행 법제하에서는 타당성이 있어 보인다.

Legal Ignorance in England and Wales: A Study of Contract, Tort, Unjust Enrichment and Civil Procedure Law

This article was written as part of a comparative law project to consider how different European legal systems (common and civil law) address the problem of legal ignorance in private law, that is, the extent to which the rules of contract, tort and unjust enrichment make allowances for ignorance of the law by legal actors. It also addresses the question of civil procedure and whether legal ignorance can provide a ground for disapplying or postponing the commencement of limitation periods. The aim of this article is to identify both the common law response and the motivation of the courts in this field to facilitate comparison with civil law systems. In seeking to understand common law legal reasoning, the starting point remains that citizens should be encouraged to familiarize themselves with the law. The law needs to set rules for the benefit of society in general. Issues such as security of transactions, legal certainty and efficiency also play a role. Nevertheless, some allowance is made for legal ignorance in the interests of fairness, although such examples are often controversial and subject to ongoing academic debate.

Legal Ignorance in Portugal

Under Portuguese law, the general principle according to which ignorance of law is no excuse is strictly interpreted, so as to refer exclusively to the validity of statutes. It does not preclude the relevance of mistakes of law in contract and in tort. In contract law, all mistakes are treated alike, irrespectively of whether they refer to facts or to legal norms. In tort law, ignorance of relevant legal norms will normally exclude the tortfeasor’s liability for wilful, intentional misconduct. In what concerns forfeiture and prescription, Portuguese law combines longer, objective, and shorter, subjective prescription periods, such as the three-year prescription period applying to claims on tort and unjust enrichment. In general terms, the shorter, subjective prescription periods start running from the moment the holder knew of the existence of his or her right.

Unjust Enrichment in the ICJ as a Path to Recovery for Haiti: Why the Independence Indemnity was Invalid Under International Law

Can you put a price on freedom? In 1825, France engaged in this valuation with precision. France demanded a 150 million franc indemnity from Haiti in return for sovereignty, which Haiti already possessed. With French gunboats positioned in the harbor, Haiti signed a treaty agreeing to France’s terms. The sum demanded was five times France’s total budget, ten times Haiti’s budget, and three times the price of Louisiana. This paper argues that Haiti is entitled to the repayment of the indemnity under a theory of unjust enrichment because, under international law of the time, the treaty would have been invalid for (1) threatening Haiti’s survival as a nation, (2) lacking effective consent, and (3) violating notions of justice and equity.

Matters Governed by the Law Applicable to Ship Insurance Contracts (Issue of Inclusion α Exclusion of Deposit into Court and of Agency and the Law Applicable to Bareboat Charter and Unjust Enrichment

Matters Governed by the Law Applicable to Ship Insurance Contracts (Issue of Inclusion α Exclusion of Deposit into Court and of Agency and the Law Applicable to Bareboat Charter and Unjust Enrichment