公法上不当得利研究

公法上不当得利是指在公法范围内,欠缺法律上的原因而发生的财产变动,致一方受有利益,他方受有损害,受损的一方有请求返还所受利益的权利,其判别标准为:公法关系、财产变动与欠缺法律上原因。在我国,宪法上的财产权、行政法上的依法行政原理与财产法上的衡平原理均为公法上不当得利存在的法学基础。公法上不当得利按不同标准可分为多类,但按请求权分类已成为习惯,可将其分为相对人向国家或其他行政主体请求、国家或其他行政主体向相对人请求与机关间相互请求等,这些在我国现存的公法规范中均有所体现。     

《民法典》第157条(法律行为无效之法律后果)评注

本条中“民事法律行为”既包括财产行为也包括身份行为,既包括负担行为也包括处分行为;“确定不发生效力”既包括效力待定法律行为终未获追认、已成立终未获审批的情形,也包括法律行为未成立的情形。本条中“财产”包括一切可转让的利益,就权利移转型合同而言,财产返还请求权系物权性的回复原状请求权,它主要指有形财产的占有回复和权利簿册记载的回复。折价补偿请求权为特殊的不当得利请求权,在合同无效清算场合,应一般性禁用《民法典》第986条得利丧失抗辩规则。损害赔偿请求权是一种特殊的缔约过失赔偿请求权,可适用于双方明知或应知合同违法、背俗而无效的场合。本条并非宣示性条款,它规定了三项独立的请求权基础。在法律对建设工程合同等特殊合同以及其他法律行为无效另有特别规定时,应各依该特别规定处理。     

房屋租赁中的添附法律问题研究——兼评法释[2009]11号中的相关规定

添附是物权法上确定所有权取得的一项重要规则,同时也与债法中的不当得利、违约责任、损害赔偿等制度密切相关.房屋租赁中的添附主要表现为不动产与动产的附合,它虽以租赁合同为基础,但相对独立于合同关系.实践中有必要区分承租人添附的善意与恶意、添附产生的合同内部关系与外部效力、添附形成物的价值大小和功能差异等因素确定添附物的归属.而对于租赁房屋添附利益的返还及损害赔偿,应当区别于租赁双方的合同责任,适用不当得利、侵权损害赔偿等规则予以解决.     

我国自然资源生态损害私法救济的不足及对策

自然资源兼具经济价值和生态价值,自然资源生态损害的私法救济在其他各国法中获得了广泛的支持。而我国法律未明确界定自然资源生态损害及其赔偿范围、赔偿权利主体等,不利于自然资源的保护。我国私法应明确自然资源生态损害的赔偿范围、赔偿权利主体,完善侵权损害赔偿救济制度,建立社会化的生态损害赔偿机制,重视预防性责任在防范自然资源生态损害中的作用。     

Restitutionary Remedies in the Contractual Context

Contracting parties sometimes have a claim to recover money paid in advance, or for reasonable payment for work done under the contract, commonly described as restitutionary remedies. This claim arising out of a contract is nowadays generally regarded as a non‐contractual, unjust enrichment claim governed by the modern law of unjust enrichment, by contrast with a contractual claim for damages or specific performance. The article argues that the claim is contractual, and that this is relevant to determining when it should be available and what the measure of recovery should be. In particular, it is argued that this follows from the proper understanding of the form of agreement made by contracting parties. The argument involves discussion of doctrinal categories such as contract and unjust enrichment, the relationship between primary and remedial rights in contract, the nature of contractual agreement, and the protection of reliance in contract.     

论不当得利制度的功能--一种体系化取向的民法学思考

近代民法以公平观念为基础建构了不当得利制度.但不能用公平观念支配不当得利制度的适用.不当得利制度的内在功能为取除受益人无法律上原因而获得的利益,其出发点为受益人是否受有利益,而受益人是否有故意或过失对不当得利的构成没有影响;该制度的外在功能为克服成文法的局限性,体现矫正正义.     

Failures for Consideration: Re-Analysing Jurisdiction in Unjust Enrichment Claims

There has been little attempt to provide a full and coherent analysis of the rules governing service of a claim form out of the jurisdiction in claims concerning unjust enrichment. This lacuna has grown more noticeable since the rules were reformed in 2015, with the continuation of an excessively wide approach that had overrun the older, overly restrictive rules. This article attempts not only to provide such an analysis but also one which is able to reconcile the wording of the rules with their underlying principles and the substantive law of unjust enrichment claims – significant constraints that have received insufficient consideration in both the case law and the literature.     

Let the Sunshine In,or Else: An Examination of the “Teeth” of State and Federal Open Meetings and Open Records Laws

Public access laws are at the heart of transparent democracy, in place to ensure that government meetings and records are open to the public. However, compliance with these laws is often problematic, a fact that can be attributed, in part, to ineffective remedies available for violations of state and federal open government laws. This study examines the enforcement provisions of the public access laws in jurisdictions across the United States to explore the remedies available, including equitable relief such as injunctions and mandamus, actual and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and civil and criminal sanctions. Structural difficulties were revealed that can make these remedies toothless for people unlawfully denied access. The article concludes by suggesting improvements such as enhanced and uniform penalties, more consistent enforcement, and alternatives to litigation.     

论我国贸易救济的范围和制度构建

在国际贸易自由化背景下,从事产品生产的国内产业和提供服务的国内产业,都可能受到国际贸易的损害。其中,从事产品生产的国内产业,可能因为同类进口产品的倾销、补贴或数量增加而受到损害,也可能因为其产品出口被其他国家或地区实施不正当、不合理进口限制而受到损害;提供服务的国内产业,可能因为外国服务提供者参与国内服务市场竞争而受到损害,也可能因为其服务输出遭遇其他国家或地区的服务贸易壁垒而受到损害。这些损害,都应当属于贸易救济的范围。要全方位救济国际贸易对国内产业的损害,我国不仅应当有针对进口产品的反倾销、反补贴和保障措施等进口救济制度,也应当有针对其他国家或地区不正当、不合理进口限制的出口救济制度,同时还应当建立完备的国际服务贸易救济制度。     

The class certification of medical monitoring claims

The tort claim of medical monitoring has produced a disarrayed set of state and federal court opinions. The procedural dimensions of this claim are as vexing as the related substantive issues with which courts and commentators have long been grappling. Ordinarily, mass tort actions, typically involving claims for money damages, are certified under Rule 23(b)(3), which class category requires the right to notice and to opt out of a proceeding, and the fulfillment of "predominance" and "superiority" requirements. Such features are absent in Rule 23's mandatory classes. Nevertheless, this Note argues that it is appropriate for claims exclusively for medical monitoring to be certified as a mandatory class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or its state law counterparts. Given that a medical monitoring fund is an equitable remedy, nonpreclusive of a future damages claim, and groupwide in nature, the (b)(2) class category adequately protects the due process rights of class plaintiffs.     

不当得利的法律适用规则

由于世界各国关于不当得利的法律制度不尽相同,国际民商事交往中不当得利的法律冲突问题日益突出。为保证支配不当得利之债的准据法与当事人的意愿相一致或有最密切的联系,并最大限度地减小因识别或定性不同而带来的难题,不当得利准据法应依序设计为:不当得利起因于合同时,适用该合同的准据法;起因于其他法律关系时,适用调整该法律关系的法律;起因于不动产交易时,适用不动产所在地法;在其他情况下产生,则其准据法为利益发生地所在国的法律。     

公法不当得利及其救济

随着给付行政的兴起,公法实践中出现了因欠缺法律原因而发生的财产变动。在适用民法不当得利制度无法解决的情况下,基于依法行政以及财产权保护的需要,应确立公法不当得利制度。在公法不当得利中,行政主体和行政相对人均可享有公法不当得利返还请求权,而此种请求权则可以通过做出行政行为以及提起行政给付诉讼的形式加以救济。     

无产权证房屋买卖合同的法律后果

对无产权证房屋买卖合同不应直接认定为无效,而应适用我国合同法关于合同有效的规定或者第51条关于无权处分的规定。合同因解除条件成就而归于消灭时,已付房价款的返还、装修房屋所形成价值的返还属于不当得利返还。于此场合,不得适用过失相抵规则,除非守约方对此类返还选择了违约损害赔偿的请求权基础。这些返还与违约方应承担的违约损害赔偿并行不悖。     

Public Trusts

Public, as distinct from charitable, trusts were authoritatively recognised in 1827, when the House of Lords determined that the permanent basis of equitable jurisdiction protected 'public money' from unlawful application, on the same basis as charitable funds were protected. These trusts made the relevant public functionaries subject to equitable remedies, but the remedies were displaced from equitable practice by jurisdictional fusion and by administrative audit surcharges. In the twentieth century they survived unrecognised in the ambiguously phrased 'local authority fiduciary duty to ratepayers'. Recently, public trusts have again been implicitly acknowledged, and the distinctive remedy of personal liability to make good loss arising from misapplication has been applied. However the right to litigate is confined to current fund-holders in fulfilment of their protective trust duty and to the Attorney General in the general public interest in countering unlawful appropriations of public money.     

Incomplete Contracts with Asymmetric Information: Exclusive Versus Optional Remedies

Scholars have been debating for years the comparative advantageof damages and specific performance. Yet, most work has compareda single remedy contract to another single remedy contract.But contract law provides the non-breaching party with a varietyof optional remedies to choose from in case of a breach, andparties themselves regularly write contracts which provide suchoptions. In this article, we start filling this gap by studyingmulti-remedy contracts. Specifically, we compare a contractthat grants the non-breaching party an option to choose betweenliquidated damages and specific performance with an exclusiveremedy contract, which restricts the non-breaching party’sremedy to liquidated damages only.     

论我国证券欺诈赔偿责任机制的完善

在我国证券欺诈案中,个人投资者救济难题是投资者"代理人"责任规则不健全、证券欺诈救济机制不完善的结果。不当获利返还原则是内涵"矫正正义"的结构性原则,该原则将投资者收益权保障目标贯穿于投资者代理人过错考察和证券欺诈赔偿基金制度中。"公平基金"等证券投资者赔偿基金,是该原则的具体应用。在2008年美国金融危机前后,大量投资者通过公平基金获偿。这也为我国投资者救济难题的解决和证券欺诈赔偿责任机制的完善提供了新的分析思路。     

Remedies for damage to property: money damages or restitution in natura?

This paper compares the tort remedies of money damages and restitution in natura from an efficiency perspective. Although there is a parallel between these remedies and the remedies for breach of contract, i.e. money damages and specific performance, the analysis is fundamentally different in torts, because of the high transaction costs involved. The basis of the comparison is the relation of each of the remedies to the subjective loss for the victim. The conclusion drawn is that no rule is generally preferable, so it is crucial to sort the different types of cases and apply in each of them the remedy, which is better suited. On this premise, are evaluated the relevant rules of Germany, England and France, since each legal system tackles this issue differently.     

不当得利返还请求权与其它请求权的竞合研究

不当得利返还请求权作为一项债权请求权与民法上的其它请求权共同构筑起民法的请求权系统,各项请求权要素按一定结构,在互动协调中实现民法的整体规范功能。囿于对不当得利返还请求权在实质上和形式上以及与其它请求权关系的不当定位,不当得利返还请求权的价值未能得以充分展示,从而严重影响了民法整体功能的实现。本文在民法请求权系统的构架中探讨了不当得利返还请求权与所有物返还请求权、合同上的请求权、侵权损害赔偿请求权、无因管理请求权的互动协调关系,力求建构起不当得利返还请求权与其它请求权的竞合结构。     

The false claims act and the eroding scienter in healthcare fraud litigation

This article addresses the federal government's expansive methods in tackling healthcare fraud, particularly in misapplying the False Claims Act. Although tasked with the obligation to curtail the fraudulent submission of Medicare & Medicaid claims, the U.S. government must rein in the current trend to utilize the False Claims Act against smaller medical providers. As the Act's original focus has ebbed in significance, the government has increasingly applied the False Claims Act to circumstances that do not evince actual fraud. In doing so, federal courts have effectively eroded the statute's critical scienter requirement. The federal common-law doctrines of "payment by mistake" and "unjust enrichment" adequately address the payment of non-fraudulent, albeit false, Medicare & Medicaid claims. Yet the federal government pursues these appropriate remedies only rarely and in the alternative, essentially when the government fails under the False Claims Act. Thus, this article argues for reform, calling for a clearer delineation between remedial and punitive measures. In cases involving smaller medical providers, courts should strictly limit the False Claims Act to those instances where fraud is clearly manifest.     

债权的侵权法保护及其法理构成

侵权法中的权利并不以社会典型公开性为必要,权利属性的界定取决于归属效能与排他功能。以此为判断标准,债权基于其不同的面向,在侵权法中具有双重属性:债权的归属具有权利的属性,其利益内容主要表现为处分及受领;债权的实现利益不属于债权的归属效能,也不具有排他功能,具有利益的属性。后者进一步体现为实现给付利益相关之债务人意志、责任财产、给付客体及债务人人身。无论是作为权利还是利益的债权,不当得利制度、契约制度等法律部门固然能够对第三人侵害债权提供部分救济,但是从法理上及交易需求角度看均不排斥侵权法的救济;而且基于侵权法的救济与制裁功能,债权的侵权法保护有其必要性。从债权的侵权法保护的构成要件角度看,侵害债权归属即可征引违法性,其主观过错并不限于故意;对于债权给付利益的侵害,因债权并不拘束第三人,因此其违法性应以行为不法为判断基准,经由制定法对行为之特别禁令或违反公序良俗完成违法性之判断,而主观要件原则上仍然需要存在致损之故意。