![]() Its historical foundation of enrichment without cause can be traced back to the Corpus Iuris Civilis. In civil law systems, unjust enrichment is often referred to as unjustified enrichment. Unjust enrichment is not to be confused with illicit enrichment, which is a legal concept referring to the enjoyment of an amount of wealth by a person that is not justified by reference to their lawful income. This may be treated as a distinct basis for restitution, or it may be treated as a subset of unjust enrichment. And restitution can also be ordered for wrongs (also called "waiver of tort" because election of remedies historically occurred when first filing a suit). Liability for an unjust enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient, though it may affect available remedies. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, modern common law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position and the protection of bona fide purchasers from contrary equitable title. Blackstone's Commentaries also endorsed this approach, citing Moses. The seminal case giving a general theory for when restitution would be available is Lord Mansfield's decision in Moses v Macferlan (1760), which imported into the common law notions of conscience from English chancery. ![]() In pre-modern English common law, restitutionary claims were often brought in an action for assumpsit and later in a claim for money had and received. In civil law systems, it is also referred to as enrichment without cause or unjustified enrichment. This principle derives from late Roman law, as stated in the Latin maxim attributed to Sextus Pomponius, Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimentum et injuria fieri locupletiorem ("By natural law it is just that no one should be enriched by another's loss or injury"). Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution. In contrast with damages (the law of compensation), restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. On this basis it has been suggested that a more appropriate name to this institute would be that of its closest counterpart under Roman Law.Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. The Romans had a much more general action called the 'Condictio Sine Causa' which operated as a subsidiary action against instances of Unjustified Enrichments not covered by the other special remedies falling under the general heading of 'Condictiones'. The slave to the extent oi the benefit acquired by the dominus. ![]() This action was competent to the third party against the dominus to claim what was owed to him by It was but a limited application of the principle prohibitingĪn Unjustified Enrichment arising from the situation where a dominus, who could not be bound by any obligation entered into by his slave with third parties, acquired whatever the slave earned. Also one may argue that the Actio De In Rem Verso in Roman Law was a very different institute from its modern namesake. ![]() It has been said that the name says nothing of the nature of the institute, but only of the result it aims at: that is, the reclaiming of the benefit that has been transferred to someone else. The 'Actio De In Rem Verso' is the name given by French jurists to the general action enforcing the universal and age old principle prohibiting the retention of an Unjustified Enrichment. The actio de in rem verso in Malta (Master’s dissertation). Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |