Unjust Enrichment and Contract

Benedetti v Sawiris was concerned with the measure of a quantum meruit, and in particular whether a ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ measure should be preferred. The Supreme Court addressed the issue broadly in line with the approach in the mainstream academic literature on unjust enrichment, according to which this is a problem of how to measure benefit. The article argues that this unjust enrichment approach is misguided because it obscures the role of agreement and conflates transfer and exchange, and that a contractual analysis of the case would make the issues clearer and easier to resolve.     

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。     

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.     

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。     

论不当得利自体法

英美学者的"不当得利自体法"理论,主张涉外不当得利之债应由其自体法支配.在不同的情势下,自体法可以是原因合同关系准据法、不动产所在地法、得利地法或不当因素产生地法.虽然学界对上述观点褒贬不一,但其对我国不当得利冲突立法有着现实的借鉴意义:原因合同关系准据法主义不仅与不当得利制度的地位与作用相匹配,而且可以解决因识别差异导致的准据法偏差问题;不动产所在地法若随着物权冲突规则的发展而扩展至与动产有关的不当得利,则亦可避免因识别差异导致的准据法偏差;而至于得利地法,则已经在大陆法系国家的早期立法中得到体现.此外,鉴于不当得利制度的核心是得利原因之不正当,故将"不当得利发生地"理解为"不当因素产生地",并作为指引不当得利准据法的连结点之一,亦可为我国立法所用.     

违法转租与无权处分、不当得利

违法转租中 ,转租人能力的欠缺不构成转租合同的效力障碍 ,次承租人有权要求转租人履行其给付义务 ,不当得利返还之客体应依个别、具体的利益标准判断。     

不当得利返还请求权之再定性

传统民法把不当得利返还权定性为债权而归入债权编,然而这种定性定位不利于保护当事人的合法权益,而且与我国物权变动的有因模式相冲突。通过对不当得利制度的历史考察和价值分析,得出的结论是:它是一种概括的混合的救济权,既可以救济对人性的权利,也可以救济对物性的权利。不当得利、不当得利之债和不当得利返还请求权是不同范畴的概念。     

半掩于救济的债因:美国不当得利法发展简史

无论是作为殖民地还是作为独立国家,美国早期的不当得利判例大多都以英国诸多不当得利诉讼形式以及作为其理论基础的默示契约理论为根源。与碎片化的判例形成鲜明对照的是,统一的不当得利观念却在法学研究和教育中逐渐萌发,这直接推动了美国第一次返还法重述的公布,普通法和衡平法上众多迥异而复杂的规则因此在不当得利原则之下被整合起来。然而,第一次重述自身的缺陷与社会发展使重述修订成为美国法律协会的重要任务,在历时五年的第二次重述失败后,集大成的第三次重述经过十五年艰苦努力后终于成功完成,其一方面将不当得利返还作为整个返还法的基本原则,使普通法系杂乱的返还法判例得以最大程度地体系化和规范化,另一方面也使传统返还法混乱的逻辑被固化,不仅使返还法与合同法、侵权法、信托法的制度边界继续纠缠不清,而且使返还请求权与不当得利之间的关系更加难以澄清,不当得利仍然是一种半掩的债因。     

Equity in Toxic Tort Litigation: Unjust Enrichment and the Poor*

This paper proposes to explore the current and prospective role of equitable theories and remedies in toxic tort litigation. The argument is for an unjust enrichment remedy in certain property pollution cases. The idea is to remove the monetary incentive for polluting economically depressed areas. Two specific areas of investigation come immediately to mind. First, courts have already embraced equitable remedies to address pollution damages. Under Ayers and its progeny, many states have allowed the equitable remedy medical monitoring. What is important to understand is how legal relief for increased risk claims would have been inadequate and also the propriety of finding an equitable approach. Second, moving from personal injury to real property damage claims, we see a similar opportunity for use of equitable relief under an unjust enrichment theory. Currently, there is much debate about the propriety of restoration damages as opposed to fair market value (FMV) damages for the landowners whose property is damaged by the pollution of another. Each approach has various strengths and weaknesses. A better approach might be to use unjust enrichment on a law and economics basis as a remedy to force polluters to internalize the cost of pollution. For instance, take a polluter who pollutes the neighboring environs in lieu of paying one million dollars in disposal and storage costs. Assume the neighboring properties are only worth three hundred thousand dollars on a FMV approach. Assume further that restoration costs are ten million dollars, but that the relevant government agency would accept a natural attenuation clean‐up approach. How should the remedy be set, and should one consider allowing a de facto pollution easement?     

国际私法上的不当得利冲突规则研究

不当得利制度作为法定之债的一种,在各国民法上占有重要一席.但由于受道德观念的影响,再加上两大法系历史传统的差异,各国不当得利制度在具体内容上的区别相当大.因此,冲突规范在解决涉外不当得利纠纷中就凸现其重要性.本文首先回顾了不当得利制度的发展历程,比较分析了大陆法系国家关于不当得利的各条冲突规则,并在研究英关立法模式对我国参考价值的基础上,提出若干立法建议.     

Unjust Enrichment and the Autonomy of Law: Private Law as Public Morality

Craig Rotherham reviews:
Hanoch Dagan, Unjust Enrichment: A Study of Private Law and Public Values     

论我国商标法确立不当得利请求权的必要性

我国现行商标法并未给不当得利请求权预留出独立发挥作用的制度空间,此举对商标权人利益的保护殊为不利.为进一步加强对商标权人利益的维护,应在商标法中对不当得利请求权做出单独规定,并结合商标侵权的具体类型,对不当得利请求权与损害赔偿请求权之间的关系问题做出妥善的规制.     

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。     

涉外民事关系法律适用法中的不当得利规则

"原因关系准据法主义"不仅能彻底解决不当得利识别困扰,而且还体现了不当得利制度的独特功能及其在整个民法体系中独立但"谦逊"的地位,故为当前大陆法系不当得利冲突立法之主流。我国新近施行的《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第47条并未真正采纳"原因关系准据法主义",而以"原因关系冲突规则主义"代之,这在冲突法层面和实体法层面都是值得检讨与反思的。对该法第47条中的"意思自治"和"发生地"作适当的解释,可在一定程度上弥补上述缺憾。     

国际民商事交往中不当得利之债法律适用问题研究

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。     

Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Fairchild Enclave’ International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc

In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.