Relevant bibliographies by topics / Unjust enrichment / Journal articles
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Unjust enrichment.

Journal articles on the topic 'Unjust enrichment'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 30 July 2024

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Unjust enrichment.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Smith, Lionel. "Unjust Enrichment." McGill Law Journal 66, no. 1 (2020): 165. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1082056ar.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Hedley, Steve. "“Unjust Enrichment”." Cambridge Law Journal 54, no. 3 (November 1995): 578–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197300097348.

Full text
Abstract:
Restitution has always been part of the common law. Yet in recent years a startling transformation has taken place: an active and determined group of scholars have collected together the hitherto scattered materials, insisting that this is the only way in which these materials can be understood; and have claimed that despite the apparent diversity they are all bound together by a single notion, that of “unjust enrichment”. A great deal of attention has been paid to elaborating this notion, and to defending particular conceptions of it.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Stoljar, Samuel. "UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND UNJUST SACRIFICE." Modern Law Review 50, no. 5 (September 1987): 603–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1987.tb01728.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Джанаева, Анна, and Anna Dzhanaeva. "INTERRELATION BETWEEN RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF ANGLO-AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM." Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law 1, no. 6 (February 7, 2016): 0. http://dx.doi.org/10.12737/17110.

Full text
Abstract:
The article deals with the interrelation between restitution and unjust enrichment in the Russian and Anglo-American legal systems. The analysis is based on theoretical scientific opinions, as well as on the legislation and judicial practice. The article notes that in the Russian law the “absence of grounds” principle is used for unjust enrichment (which means that if there is no legal basis for enrichment, the rules on unjust enrichment should be applied), and in order to apply the restitution rules one must prove the “unfair factor” in the form of an invalid transaction (the basis for the application of legal rules is specified). The first approach is typical for unjust enrichment in the continental law system, the second one — in the Anglo-American legal system. The Russian legislation thereby simultaneously uses two criteria — most situations are covered by the “absence of ground” principle, and restitution as a consequence of transaction invalidation is set aside, in this situation the “unjust factor” principle is applied. Mixing two different approaches seems unjustified. In addition, the author notes that legal consequences and the nature of restitution and unjust enrichment in the Russian law are basically the same — both institutions have the aim to restore the legal status that existed before the person who unjustly enriched himself breached the law. The author concludes that there is a need to avoid duplication of legal institutions of unjust enrichment and restitution in the Russian law, and to make restitution a universal protection measure for any event of unjust enrichment.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Saprai, Prince. "Weinrib on Unjust Enrichment." Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 24, no. 1 (January 2011): 183–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0841820900005117.

Full text
Abstract:
The article is a critique of Ernest Weinrib’s attempts to explain the structure of unjust enrichment law according to his theory of corrective justice. The plausibility of Weinrib’s account of unjust enrichment is of critical importance to his claim that corrective justice is a theory of private law in general. Ultimately, I argue that Weinrib’s efforts to accommodate unjust enrichment within his conception of corrective justice fail. This is in large part due to the fact that Weinrib sets himself the uphill task of both explaining unjust enrichment from its own internal perspective where the structure of liability is strict and not based on fault and justifying it in terms of his interpretation of corrective justice which is rooted in wrongdoing. The dilemma between structure and justification runs throughout Weinrib’s early and recent writings on unjust enrichment, and I argue that there is now a need to confront it.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Webb, C. "What is Unjust Enrichment?" Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29, no. 2 (April 30, 2009): 215–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqp008.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Jaffey, Peter. "Unjust Enrichment and Contract." Modern Law Review 77, no. 6 (November 2014): 983–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12099.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Grantham, R. B. "DISGORGEMENT FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT." Cambridge Law Journal 62, no. 1 (March 1, 2003): 159–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197303006275.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Virgo, Graham. "UNJUST ENRICHMENT – VALUING SERVICES." Cambridge Law Journal 70, no. 2 (June 20, 2011): 299–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197311000432.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Jaffey, Peter. "Classification and Unjust Enrichment." Modern Law Review 67, no. 6 (November 2004): 1012–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2004.00521.x.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
11

Dominiak, Łukasz. "Unjust Enrichment And Libertarianism." Polish Political Science Review 10, no. 2 (December 1, 2022): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ppsr-2022-0009.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract The present paper takes on the question of whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Despite Walter Block’s recent arguments to the contrary, the paper argues that unless a gain is received in accordance with the libertarian principles of justice, it is without a basis and thus unjust. This fact alone proves that the concept of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Besides, even though it is true — as Block claims — that forcing the recipient of an unjust gain to return it or pay for it involves positive duties and is therefore incompatible with libertarianism, the present paper argues that the practical consequences of this fact would be negligible, for compensatory schemes would develop on the free market anyway in justice-preserving steps.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
12

Botterell, Andrew. "Property, Corrective Justice, and the Nature of the Cause of Action in Unjust Enrichment." Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 20, no. 2 (July 2007): 275–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0841820900004215.

Full text
Abstract:
In this paper I reconsider the relation between property and unjust enrichment and respond to a recent argument that actions in unjust enrichment cannot be actions in corrective justice. I suggest that any analysis that regards actions in unjust enrichment as embodying principles of corrective justice requires supplementation by considerations that are, at bottom, proprietary in nature. I argue that there is no incompatibility in viewing actions in unjust enrichment as actions whose grounds are broadly proprietary in nature; that understanding unjust enrichment in this manner does not threaten its theoretical coherence; and that understanding unjust enrichment in this manner allows us to view actions in unjust enrichment as actions in corrective justice.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
13

Rousseau-Houle, Thérèse. "La notion d'enrichissement sans cause en droit administratif québécois." Les Cahiers de droit 19, no. 4 (April 12, 2005): 1039–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/042284ar.

Full text
Abstract:
The problem of unjust enrichment has often been raised in recent years with reference to litigation concerning contracts with public authorities. Many times, parties to such contracts have invoked this principle to obtain compensation for services provided under contracts later declared irregular or void. The courts have then attempted to apply in the context of administrative law the conditions laid down by civil law doctrine for unjust enrichment. The transposition to administrative law of the civil concept of unjust enrichment does not, however, appear to have been adequate. To begin with, the principle of unjust enrichment is difficult to dissociate from the quasi-contract of negotiorum gestio in administrative law. Further, the material and legal conditions of unjust enrichment cannot be applied as a whole to administrative law. In this field, unjust enrichment appears as a true quasi-contract in the sense that it requires the assent of the person enriched. Furthermore, the enrichment must have resulted in a real benefit in the general interest of the administration. These special conditions require a different approach toward the notion of unjust enrichment in administrative law. This approach may be elaborated from the Common Law notion of quantum meruit or from the theory of unjust enrichment in French administrative law. A new concept of unjust enrichment in Quebec administrative law would lead to finding, in the field of quasi-contracts, a solution which would provide for the protection of both public finances and the individual interests of co-contractants.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
14

Burrows, Andrew. "IN DEFENCE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT." Cambridge Law Journal 78, no. 3 (October 10, 2019): 521–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197319000722.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractThis article seeks to defend the law of unjust enrichment against the recent influential attacks of Robert Stevens (“The Unjust Enrichment Disaster” (2018) 134 LQR 574) and Lionel Smith (“Restitution: A New Start?” in Devonshire and Havelock, The Impact of Equity and Restitution in Commerce (2018), ch. 5). A central argument here put forward is that there is a law of unjust enrichment, embodying a cause of action in unjust enrichment, which unites what Stevens and Smith see as disparate categories. A linked but separate argument is that, within the central area of unjust enrichment, Stevens is incorrect to regard the defendant's acceptance of performance as being necessary to trigger restitution albeit that acceptance may be relevant in establishing that the defendant has been enriched. A further, and more specific, argument is that, with great respect, the overruling, as a matter of principle, of Sempra Metals Ltd. v IRC [2007] UKHL 34, [2008] 1 A.C. 561, by the Supreme Court in Prudential Assurance Ltd. v HMRC [2018] UKSC 39, [2018] 3 WLR 652, seems unfortunate and appears to have been influenced by Stevens's excessively narrow approach to the meaning of “at the expense of”.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
15

Williams, Rebecca. "Unjust Enrichment and Public Law." Judicial Review 19, no. 4 (December 19, 2014): 209–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/10854681.19.4.209.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
16

O'Dell, Eoin. "Liens, necessity and unjust enrichment." Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 57, no. 2 (August 10, 2020): 288–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v57i2.833.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
17

Gallo, Paolo. "Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Analysis." American Journal of Comparative Law 40, no. 2 (1992): 431. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/840566.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
18

Doyle, Matthew. "Corrective Justice and Unjust Enrichment." University of Toronto Law Journal 62, no. 2 (April 2012): 229–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/utlj.62.2.229.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
19

BARKER, KIT. "Unjust Enrichment: Containing the Beast." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15, no. 3 (1995): 457–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/15.3.457.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
20

Birks, P. "Property, Unjust Enrichment, and Tracing." Current Legal Problems 54, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 231–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clp/54.1.231.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
21

Hedley, Steve. "Unjust Enrichment: A Middle Course?" Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 2, no. 2 (January 2002): 181–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2002.11421411.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
22

Hedley, Steve. "What is ‘unjust enrichment’ for?" Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 16, no. 2 (July 2, 2016): 333–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2016.1276277.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
23

Conaglen, Matthew, and Peter Turner. "SUBROGATION, ACCOUNTING AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT." Cambridge Law Journal 69, no. 1 (March 2010): 30–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197310000139.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
24

Connolly, Niamh. "COUNTERFACTUAL ARGUMENTS IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT." Cambridge Law Journal 79, no. 3 (November 2020): 408–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197320000689.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
25

Díaz, Julio. "Unjust Enrichment And Roman Law." Pensar - Revista de Ciências Jurídicas 12 (2007): 114–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5020/2317-2150.2007.v12.ed.esp.p114.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
26

Pajtić, Bojan. "Unjust enrichment: Comparative legal review." Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad 57, no. 3 (2023): 659–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns57-45194.

Full text
Abstract:
Unjust enrichment is very highly positio ned as one of the sources of obligations in the Law on Obligations. Research of comparative legal literature (both doctrinal type and judgments of national courts) indicated significant differences in the attitude towards this institute both bet ween the legal systems of continental law and within the corpus of countries in which the so-called common law system is dominant. In the paper, a detailed analysis of both domestic and COM parative legal literature and court practice was carried out. During the research, special emphasis was placed on the legal solutions in force in other, primarily European legal systems. The analysis included both those legal systems (French, German) that have a decisive influence on the civil law codes of other continental law countries, as well as those that are of decisive importance in coun tries characterized by precedential law (Great Britain, United States of America). A re view was al so made of solutions from the Hungarian legal system, whose impact on our law is not ne arly as far-reaching as the aforementioned legal orders, but due to the similarity of the genesis of civil law in our two countries in the last hundred years, they arouse interest. One of the basic differences bet ween continental and commonlaw is reflected in the fact that in the former the central question is whether there was a legal basis for the defendant to gain some benefit, while the latter the focus is on the question of whether the plaintiff has a basis to claim restitution. Consequently, in continental law systems, the court will, first of all, order the restitution of what the defendant unjustly acquired, while in "common law" systems the plaintiff has the obligation to first prove that he has a reliable basis for restitution. In addition to recognizing the differences between the two groups of systems, through analysis we also come to distinctions within the groups themselves. For example, unlike French law, German law, albeit with certain difficulties, resolves the problem of unjust enrichment due to the actions of a third party. According to our ZOO, when a part of one person's property has been transferred in any way to the property of another person, and that transfer has no basis in a legal transaction or in the law, the acquirer is obliged to return it, and when this is not possible - to compensate the value of the benefits achieved. Obligation to return, i.e. compensation of value also occurs when something is received with regard to a basis that was not realized or that later fell away. The obligation to return is not subject to those goods that were given in the name of fulfilling some natural obligation or some moral or social duty, amounts that were paid even though the payer knew that he was not obliged to make the payment, as well as funds that, without a legal basis, were paid in the name of compensation for damages due to bodily injury, health impairment or death, if the payment was made to a bona fide recipient. The review of domestic judicial practice shed light on a wide range of situations in which legally unjustified enrichment can occur, i.e. acquisition without grounds. Although we are talking about an institution that has long been present as a source of obligations in the Law on Obligations, certain judgments, which are contra legem, show that in connection with this institution there are, still, numerous doubts.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
27

Priel, Dan. "The Justice in Unjust Enrichment." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 51, no. 3 (April 1, 2014): 813–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.2757.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
28

Alias, Siti Aliza, and Ida Madieha Abd Ghani Azmi. "THE LAW OF RESTITUTION OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN MALAYSIA: A SEARCH FOR PRINCIPLE, POST ‘DREAM PROPERTY’." IIUM Law Journal 32, no. 1 (May 31, 2024): 153–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v32i1.970.

Full text
Abstract:
Part VI of the Malaysian Contracts Act 1950 ('of certain relations resembling those created by contract') embodies the old notion of quasi-contract or implied contract - what is now known under English Law and in other Common Law jurisdictions as restitution of unjust enrichment. The landmark decision of our Federal Court, in the case of Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd gave recognition to ‘unjust enrichment’ as a separate cause of action in Malaysia. However, the law of unjust enrichment in Malaysia is at its infancy and still developing. This paper focuses on two main questions that arise from that decision. Firstly, on the legal consequences of the court's apparent adoption of the civil law 'absence of basis' approach to determine whether an enrichment is 'unjust', rather than the traditional 'unjust factor' approach under English Common Law, and how this might affect the future development of unjust enrichment as a separate cause of action in Malaysia. Secondly, on the larger question of what the law of unjust enrichment in Malaysia now is or should be - whether the correct approach is to develop unjust enrichment within an apparent ‘dual legal regime’ ie. the statutory regime under the Contracts Act 1950 and the Common Law regime; or rather to use the Common Law by analogy to develop the contents (ie. detailed rules and principles) of the Contracts Act 1950 (Part VI) in a principled approach that may require modern restatement for practical use today. Using the doctrinal and comparative methodology, it is the paper’s findings that the latter ‘unified’ approach is preferable as a way forward for Malaysian courts to develop our law of unjust enrichment and using the ‘unjust factor’ approach, for reasons outlined in this paper.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
29

Grantham, Ross, and Charles Rickett. "A NORMATIVE ACCOUNT OF DEFENCES TO RESTITUTIONARY LIABILITY." Cambridge Law Journal 67, no. 1 (March 2008): 92–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s000819730800007x.

Full text
Abstract:
The modern law of unjust enrichment is unique in many respects. In one sense, it is the newest and most significant development in the private law for a very long time. While it can claim ancient roots, as a discrete body of law unjust enrichment has only emerged from the long shadows of the law of contract in the last 20 years. The development and content of the law of unjust enrichment has, to a greater extent than perhaps anywhere else in the private law, been driven and shaped by academic rather than judicial influences. The law of unjust enrichment is also distinguished from the other principal heads of civil obligation in that its focus is on stripping the defendant of gains made rather than making good losses suffered by the plaintiff. Perhaps most controversially, the role or function of unjust enrichment may differ from the other principal parts of the private law in that the source of the entitlement protected is not found within the law of unjust enrichment, but in other areas of the law.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
30

Halberda, Jan. "Instytucja niesłusznego zbogacenia w polskim Kodeksie zobowiązań z 1933 roku na tle współczesnych kodyfikacji." Krakowskie Studia z Historii Państwa i Prawa 5, no. 4 (2012): 307–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.4467/20844131ks.12.024.0925.

Full text
Abstract:
THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT AS REGULATED IN THE CODE OF OBLIGATIOON OF 1933 AND COMPARED WITH SIMILAR SOLUTIONS FOUND IN THE OTHER CODES F THE TIME The paper discusses the unjust enrichmennt as found in the Polish Code of Obligations of 1933. The discussion is conducted in a comparative way and makes allusions to other regulations of the time (those detectable in the ABGB, Code Civil, BGB, Obligationenrecht). It also makes reference to the solution accepted in the Polish Civil Code of 1964. What was discussed was the very construction of unjust enrichment as found in the aforementioned regulations (1), grounds for the claims (2), the scope within which the duty to return the enrichment applied (3), the nature of the claim – whether it was autonomous or subsidiary (4). In his final remarks, the author tried to assess the discussed institution as regulated in the Code of Obligations (5).
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
31

Lee, Yun-Yong, and Man-Joong Shin. "A Study on the Improvement of the System for Recovering Unjust Enrichment in the Defense Acquisition Program Act." Institute of Legal Myongji University 22, no. 1 (July 31, 2023): 75–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.53066/mlr.2023.22.1.75.

Full text
Abstract:
A defense project contract has a number of different characteristics from a general national contract, such as a large amount of capital is invested and a long period of time from request to delivery. In the course of the implementation of the defense project contract, the contract partner's breach of contract and illegal acts appear in various forms. The act of earning profit by submitting false or other illegal cost calculation data is an act that undermines the principle of good faith and is subject to the return of unjust profit. However, although the principle on the recovery of unjust enrichment is stipulated in the Defense Acquisition Program Act, there is no clear regulation on detailed calculation methods or standards, so it is necessary to clarify the legal nature of unjust profit, specify the subject and scope, and establish clear standards for the calculation method. First of all, it is reasonable to view that the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment corresponds to the right to claim compensation for damages caused by default, and the legal nature of the additional charges is a penalty for breach of contract. However, since it is stipulated differently from the legal purpose of the recovering system for unjust enrichment, it is necessary to prevent confusion by amending the relevant provisions to compensate for the damages corresponding to the unjust enrichment. In addition, although the current regulation stipulates the recovery of unjust enrichment, there is no regulation on the calculation method of unjust enrichment, so there is room for dispute over this, so it is necessary to specify that the difference between the contract amount and the settlement cost is the unjust enrichment. On the other hand, according to the current Defense Acquisition Program Act, it is stipulated that unjust enrichment and additional charges be recovered simultaneously, but there is no regulation on exemption from additional charges. Even in the case of imposing an additional charge, it is necessary to ensure specific validity by imposing an additional charge of an amount smaller than the amount of unjust enrichment.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
32

Grušić, Uglješa. "UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND THE BRUSSELS I REGULATION." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 68, no. 04 (October 2019): 837–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589319000381.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractThis article examines how the jurisdictional rules of the recast of the Brussels I Regulation, namely the rules of exclusive jurisdiction for immovable property and company law and governance matters and the rules of special jurisdiction for contracts and torts, deal with unjust enrichment claims and issues concerning unjust enrichment. It also asks whether a new special jurisdiction rule for unjust enrichment should be added to the Regulation.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
33

Edelman, James. "The Meaning of ’Unjust’ in the English Law of Unjust Enrichment." European Review of Private Law 14, Issue 3 (June 1, 2006): 309–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/erpl2006017.

Full text
Abstract:
In 1991 the House of Lords conclusively recognized the existence of the law of unjust enrichment in England and Wales. So began a process of development and refinement that in other branches of private law had begun many decades ago. A central issue was what it was that made an enrichment ?unjust?. In a groundbreaking work in 1985, Professor Birks had argued that the reasons why an enrichment was unjust were protean. He explained that the approach to ?unjust? which was most consistent with the corpus of pre-existing case law required the identification of an ?unjust factor? which had been recognized in judicial decisions. After 1991 many cases followed this approach and recognized, as unjust factors, diverse reasons for restitution which had long existed in the corpus of case law such as mistake, duress, failure of consideration as well as new unjust factors. In his last book in 2003, Professor Birks relied upon a group of cases involving restitution following ultra vires interest rate swaps and argued that English law had changed direction. The new direction, Birks argued, was to ask whether there was any basis upon which a recipient could retain an enrichment rather than looking for any particular, recognized, unjust factor. This article assesses the two views and concludes that whilst the meaning of unjust may not yet be entrenched in English law, and whilst the two approaches will usually lead to the same result, the dominant model is still the unjust factors approach and this is the model which should be preferred.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
34

Yasan, Mustafa. "The Issue of Adoption of Unjust Enrichment Case for Negotiable Instruments’ Practice in the 10-year Application of the Turkish Code of Commerce since 2012." Teka Komisji Prawniczej PAN Oddział w Lublinie 15, no. 2 (December 31, 2022): 435–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.32084/tkp.5137.

Full text
Abstract:
One of the original and exceptional institutions of the negotiable instruments law is the unjust enrichment case. Although unjust enrichment is regulated in the Turkish Code of Obligations in general terms and is accepted as a source of debt relations, it also constitutes the subject of a case-specific to the Turkish Code of Commerce and only negotiable instruments as a result of the choice of the legislator. Due to its exceptional nature, the legislator has also strictly determined the conditions that must be fulfilled to file an unjust enrichment case in negotiable instruments. This approach of the legislator is correct. The unjust enrichment case in negotiable instruments creates an extraordinary and additional demand opportunity for the right holder. Despite this option and opportunity, these bills are used only as ordinary bills instead of filing a lawsuit for unjust enrichment in negotiable instruments. Undoubtedly, this is a contradiction. To put it briefly, the reason for this contradiction is the lack of awareness in the practice of law.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
35

김동훈. "The Remaining Enrichment in the Law of Unjust Enrichment." CHUNG_ANG LAW REVIEW 11, no. 4 (December 2009): 83–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.21759/caulaw.2009.11.4.83.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
36

KWEON, Tae-Sang. "Transfer Security and Attachment, Unjust Enrichment." Ewha Law Journal 24, no. 1 (September 30, 2019): 1–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.32632/elj.2019.24.1.1.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
37

Tkachuk, A. V. "MONETARY MEANS IN UNJUST ENRICHMENT LIABILITIES." Actual problems of native jurisprudence, no. 1 (2022): 89–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.32782/392248.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
38

Vieira Gomes, Júlio Manuel. "Unjust Enrichment: A Few Comparative Remarks." European Review of Private Law 9, Issue 2/3 (June 1, 2001): 449–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/359030.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
39

Hornung, Rainer, Peter Schlechtriem, and Christoph Coen. "Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in Europe." European Review of Private Law 9, Issue 2/3 (June 1, 2001): 377–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/359013.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
40

LECKEY, Robert. "UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND DE FACTO SPOUSES." Revue du notariat 114, no. 3 (2012): 475. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1044749ar.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
41

Sagaert, Vincent. "Unjust Enrichment and Change of Position." Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 11, no. 2 (June 2004): 159–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1023263x0401100204.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
42

Williams, R. "Unjust Enrichment and European Community Law." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21, no. 3 (September 1, 2001): 583–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ojls/21.3.583.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
43

Degeling, Simone. "Tort and Unjust Enrichment Intersect Again." King's Law Journal 17, no. 1 (January 2006): 117–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2006.11427634.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
44

Dickson, Brice. "Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comparative Overview." Cambridge Law Journal 54, no. 1 (March 1995): 100–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197300083173.

Full text
Abstract:
This article examines a variety of legal systems with a view to assessing the role currently played within each of them by the principle of unjust enrichment. By focusing on the characteristic features of unjust enrichment claims it seeks to demonstrate that, although there are significant differences between the ways in which different countries handle such claims, there is also much that those systems have in common. While under the common law the principle of unjust enrichment has endured a long struggle for recognition, in civil law systems it has been acknowledged for centuries. This may be because in civil law countries the principle has been expected to play only a residual, and therefore non-threatening, role in the law of obligations while in common law countries it has been called upon, if at all, to serve as the basis for the whole of the law of restitution. We should not assume, however, that all common law systems share one set of characteristics while all civil law systems share another. In some respects there is more in common between systems drawn from each category than there is between systems drawn from the same category. Mixed legal systems, as one might expect, tend to display characteristics drawn from both.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
45

Hang Wu, Tang. "UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND WRONGLY PAID TAX." Cambridge Law Journal 65, no. 2 (June 29, 2006): 276–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197306297113.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
46

Goymour, Amy. "PREMATURE TAX PAYMENTS AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT." Cambridge Law Journal 66, no. 1 (March 2007): 24–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197307000281.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
47

Block, Walter E. "Libertarian Punishment Theory and Unjust Enrichment." Journal of Business Ethics 154, no. 1 (February 22, 2017): 103–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3469-7.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
48

Jayantara, Made, I. Gede Agus Kurniawan, and Putu Aras Samsithawrati. "THE “UNJUST ENRICHMENT” IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: A PROPHETIC LEGAL PARADIGM." Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum 10, no. 2 (September 7, 2023): 215. http://dx.doi.org/10.26532/jph.v10i2.30673.

Full text
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to analyze the implications of the concept of Unjust Enrichment in the realm of intellectual property rights and the orientation of the application of the concept of Unjust Enrichment in the realm of intellectual property rights from a prophetic law perspective. This research is a normative legal research using a case, concept, and statutory approach. The results of the study state that the implication of the concept of Unjust Enrichment in the realm of intellectual property rights is intended to protect creators of works or holders of intellectual property rights, especially in fulfilling economic rights. The orientation of the application of the concept of Unjust Enrichment in the realm of intellectual property rights in the perspective of prophetic law is that the Supreme Court Decision which becomes jurisprudence must be a guide and guide for judges in resolving cases related to Unjust Enrichment in the realm of intellectual property rights. The main finding in this study is that three aspects of prophetic law, namely liberation, humanization, and transcendence are three aspects that must be met and considered in the application of the concept of Unjust Enrichment in all rules related to intellectual property rights, including the formulation of sanctions as well as legal remedies that can be taken if there is a loss suffered by the holder of intellectual property rights.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
49

Salmons, David. "CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD-PARTY RECIPIENTS OF TRUST PROPERTY." Cambridge Law Journal 76, no. 2 (July 2017): 399–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197317000423.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractThis article argues that claims to recover trust property from third parties arise in response to a trustee's duty to preserve identifiable property, and that unjust enrichment is incompatible with such claims. First, unjust enrichment can only assist with the recovery of abstract wealth and so it does not assist in the recovery of specific property. Second, it is difficult to identify a convincing justification for introducing unjust enrichment. Third, it will work to the detriment of innocent recipients. The article goes on to show how Re Diplock supports this analysis, by demonstrating that no duty of preservation had been breached and that a proprietary claim should not have been available in that case. The simple conclusion is that claims to recover specific property and claims for unjust enrichment should be seen as mutually exclusive.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
50

Shah, Rajiv. "INDIRECT ENRICHMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT." Cambridge Law Journal 76, no. 3 (November 2017): 490–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197317000757.

Full text
Abstract:
A customer purchases services from a supplier to which VAT at the applicable rate is added but VAT was not actually due. Is the customer able to recover these payments by bringing an unjust enrichment claim against the Revenue and Customs Commissioners? “Yes”, answered the Court of Appeal, on the basis that as a matter of “economic reality” the Commissioners were enriched at the expense of the customers, and that such an enrichment was unjust because VAT was not actually due. Lord Reed, giving the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, reversed that decision: Investment Trust Companies (In Liquidation) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2017] UKSC 29; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 1200. The customers did not have an unjust enrichment claim against the Commissioners because their enrichment was not “at the expense of” the customers.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the bibliographies on the topic 'Unjust enrichment' for other source types:
Dissertations / Theses Books
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography