We All Make Mistakes: A ‘Duty of Virtue’ Theory of Restitutionary Liability for Mistaken Payments

In contrast to the moral foundations of contract, tort, and the law of property, which are generally regarded as elements of Kantian ‘right’, the liability to return the value of mistaken payments is, it is argued, an example of the law's enforcing a duty of virtue, the legalisation of the duty of beneficence in a way similar (though not identical) to how the law might instantiate a duty of easy rescue. Accordingly, one of Birks's most cherished theses – that the law of unjust enrichment represents a distinctive element of private law – can be made out: it is distinctive in having an entirely different normative source: in virtue, not in right. But this result comes at a cost: (1) a legal system could function more or less justly without such a liability; (2) Birks's thesis that liability for mistaken payment is the archetype or paradigmatic case of liability for unjust enrichment would have to be abandoned; and (3) we would have to recognise that the ground of this liability is policy‐motivated.     

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.     

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.     

法律行为被认定为无效后的已给付利益清算

日本民法中的不当得利制度系借鉴德国民法和瑞士民法的规定设计而成,以衡平说居于重要地位,但随着实践的发展,类型论亦逐渐获得一定判例的支持,因此应当进一步从法律事实与纠纷解决的角度对不当得利制度进行深入研究。同时,"法律行为被认定为无效后的已给付利益清算"问题属于与非债清偿并列的"给付得利"中的典型问题。值得关注的是,近年来在日本民法(债权法)的修改过程中,有学者提出无效法律行为的效果将会对不当得利法的理论与实践产生重要影响,因此,厘清当事人行为的各异样态、被认定为无效的诸种原因、以及所涉及的受领给付返还原则、价额返还原则、约定对价的限度等问题及其之间的关系尤为必要。目前日本民法(债权法)修改方案中的相关条文设置无法有针对性地解决实践问题,故此,最有效的立法方式应当是先将概括性的一般规定作为不当得利返还请求权的基础性条文,然后再针对个别类型通过特则进行具体规定。     

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。     

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。     

《民法典》中准合同制度的历史演变与体系效应

准合同制度是我国《民法典》中的一项重要制度,其包括无因管理和不当得利。准合同概念源于罗马法。随着合同一般概念的发展,准合同概念中的意思论要素被法学家们不断强调,其中,近代自然法学派尤其重视对准合同概念进行意思论的改造。然而,意思论的准合同处于法定之债与意定之债的中间环节,已不再被当代主要大陆法系国家立法所坚持。由于我国《民法典》的立法者采取了实用主义的立法思路,所以,我们应在法定之债模式下理解准合同制度。无因管理制度的准合同属性主要体现在《民法典》第984条中,即管理人管理事务经受益人事后追认的,从管理事务开始时起,适用委托合同的有关规定。然而,这一规定是否具有实际意义值得商榷。准合同理论对不当得利制度的影响主要体现在建构返还法体系和统一化或类型化不当得利返还请求权方面,而非体现在对具体合同条款的准用中。     

合同解除效果与违约责任——以请求权基础为视角之检讨

《合同法》第97条的"恢复原状"属于返还上独立的请求权基础,具有债权效力。依据该条的"恢复原状"主张不当得利返还或所有权返还并无法律依据。解除后实物返还不能时的折价补偿,以及因返还产生的费用均属返还义务而非损害赔偿义务的内容。《合同法》第97条的"赔偿损失"并非因解除而生独立的损害赔偿请求权。在违约导致合同解除的场合,当事人可依据《合同法》第107条主张履行利益的损害赔偿。除行使任意解除权外,当事人原则上只能依据《合同法》第42条的缔约过失责任规范来主张信赖利益损害赔偿。另外,合同解除与违约责任可以并存。违约金请求权原则上不受合同解除的影响。     

Restitution in America: Why the US Refuses to Join the Global Restitution Party

In the past generation, restitution law has emerged as a globalphenomenon. From its Oxbridge home, restitution migrated tothe rest of the Commonwealth, and ongoing Europeanization projectshave brought the common law of restitution into contact withthe Romanist concept of unjust enrichment, further internationalizingthis movement. In contrast, in the United States, scholarlyinterest in restitution, in terms of books, articles, treatises,symposia and courses on restitution, is meager. Similarly, whilerestitution, equity and tracing cases receive considerable treatmentat the highest levels of the English judiciary, US courts seemuninterested in these issues, rarely producing the theory-ladenopinions that have become quite common in the House of Lords.The situation is particularly curious because restitution isgenerally thought to be the invention of late nineteenth-centuryAmerican scholars. This article explains this divergence. Iargue that the Commonwealth restitution discourse is largelya product of pre- or anti-realist legal thought which generatesscepticism within the American academic-legal establishment.The article identifies the two dominant camps in American privatelaw thought—left-leaning redistributionalists and thecentre-right legal economists—and shows that neither hasany use for the Commonwealth's discourse. I conclude by analysingthe emerging drafts of the Restatement of Restitution and forecastthe future of American restitution law.     

A Riddle Whose Answer is ‘Tort’: A Reassessment of International News Service v Associated Press

The decision of the US Supreme Court in International News Service v Associated Press (1918) has variously been interpreted as recognising a ‘quasi‐property’ right in ‘valuable intangibles’, such as hot news; as turning on unjust enrichment; or as creating a novel tort of unfair competition by misappropriation. It is suggested that the case is more authentically understood as an incidental result of a process by which the Supreme Court extended the boundaries of tort liability, and the corresponding scope of property protection, in a series of decisions against organised labour. The argument is pursued with reference to the prima facie tort theory of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the American ‘labour injunction’, and the labour law record of the author of the majority opinion in International News, Justice Mahlon Pitney.     

Better than Fuller: A Two Interests Model of Remedies for Breach of Contract

The attempt to combine the contractual interests properly so‐called with the restitution interest in the Fuller and Purdue three interests model of remedies for breach of contract is ineradicably incoherent. Stimulated by reflection on contemporary restitution doctrine's understanding of the quasi‐contractual remedies of recovery and quantum meruit, this paper argues that the complete elimination from the law of contract of the restitution interest, which incorporates those remedies into the three interests model, would improve both the coherence of the model of contractual interests and the substantive law of remedies for breach.     

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。     

论违约解除后的责任承担

违约解除后的“恢复原状”意指受领方对原物的返还,属于物权请求权的内容;“采取补救措施”是指在给付物已毁损、灭失或者给付的金钱的情况下受领方对给付物价额的返还,属于不当得利;违约解除后“赔偿损失”的目的并非使合同恢复至合同订立前的状态,而在于填补守约方因相对方的违约行为而受到的损失,因而合同解除与违约责任理应并存。违约解除之后,担保人应该继续就债务人的价额返还义务与赔偿损失义务承担担保责任,价额返还与赔偿损失请求权的诉讼时效应自合同被解除时开始起算。《最高人民法院公报》裁判摘要虽有事实上的拘束力,但其受制于学说的评析与检验。     

处于多重语境中的民事责任能力

私法范畴的民事责任能力不是一个内涵统一的概念。本文运用语境分析的方法,揭示出处于惩罚语境、责任构成语境、后果承担语境中的民事责任能力概念的不同内涵。每一种语境都有自己的表达需求。民事责任能力概念成了稀缺资源,供不应求。无论哪个语境垄断民事责任能力概念,都将造成其他语境的表达困难。学者们围绕民事责任能力产生的很多争论实质是不同语境中的话语权之争。解决话语权之争的途径是:在不同的语境下使用不同的概念来防止歧义。     

Against Lumley v Gye

The Lumley v Gye tort of inducing a breach of contract is the foundation of strike law, although it also has a wider commercial role. We should reject the view that Lumley liability follows automatically from general contractual liability. Contract law is optional. Imposing its obligations on unwilling parties requires special justification. We should also be sceptical about the claim that Lumley liability increases confidence that contracts will be enforced. Such scepticism should be enhanced by parallels between Lumley liability and restitutionary damages for breach of contract. Some Lumley cases illustrate the point that 'efficient breach of contract' has a moral core, not just an economic core. For example, it can sometimes be unreasonable and unjust for parties to insist on precise contractual performance when they know that circumstances have changed in ways that the contract did not anticipate. For all these reasons the justification defence to Lumley should be widened.     

The political morality of convergence in contract

One of the most interesting recent developments in contract law has been an academic and political effort to integrate private law. The proposed Common European Sales Law was ultimately withdrawn, and a series of setbacks, including the British referendum to exit the EU, has recast the politics of convergence. But it remains an objective for many European scholars. This essay considers the wisdom of convergence on a single law of transactions from the perspective of philosophical contract theory. The essay proceeds by disaggregating the rights at stake in contract law. It characterises the formal right to contract and describes its moral impetus as one that should underwrite contract law in all states, especially liberal states. But the essay argues that the legitimate contours of the formal right are contingent on tenets of political culture that vary across Member States. Similarly, substantive regulation of contract is morally compulsory and serves universal interests; the essay takes regulation of permissible work and remuneration for work as examples. But the rules and standards that best advance those moral interests depend on economic facts specific to individual political communities. The essay concludes by arguing that contract law is a poor tool by which to accelerate political and economic convergence.     

不当得利“没有合法根据”之概念澄清——基于“给付”概念的中国法重释

不当得利＂没有合法根据＂的证明责任问题在诉讼法上争议颇多。在探讨＂没有合法根据＂的证明责任问题前,应首先在民法上澄清＂没有合法根据＂的具体所指。我国民法对不当得利的理解受到德日的混合影响,但并未察觉德日对不当得利的理解路径是不同的。德国学说通过物权行为等理论构建,奠定了＂给付＂概念的基础,并进而明确了＂没有合法根据＂的所指。日本法基于自己的判例构建了与德国形似神异的不当得利学说,其＂给付＂及＂没有合法根据＂的所指与德国法不同,并在一定程度上导致了不当得利的＂名不副实＂。我国法不承认物权行为理论,也不应继受日本异化的不当得利理论,应根据我国现有民法制度重释＂给付＂概念,并在此基础上确定不当得利＂没有合法根据＂的具体所指,为其证明责任的确定奠定基础,也为其他诉讼法问题的解决奠定民法基础。     

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。     

解除效果折衷说之评论

解除效果之折衷说不符合我国合同法第97条规定的文义和规范意旨;解除不消灭合同关系之说不符合客观事实;将恢复原状义务作为合同解除导致的返还债务存在着难以克服的弱点。折衷说对于我国合同法第98条的解读、对于合同与违约损害赔偿之间的依存关系的认识存在着误区,在利益衡量方面处于劣势。在合同无效、合同被撤销和合同解除三者之间关系的把握上,折衷说看错了法律评价的重心。折衷说关于解除权行使的行为引起物权变动之说不能成立。