{"title":"Unjustified enrichment in the Chinese Civil Code: questions from the common law","authors":"Zhicheng Wu, W. Swadling","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2033081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Unjustified enrichment in Chinese law has been substantially expanded in recent years by the Chinese Civil Code, as well as by other primary and secondary sources, making comparative studies more viable. This article asks a number of questions about the Chinese law through the lens of a common lawyer. One is the use of the heading ‘quasi-contract’ to describe the chapter of the Code in which the unjustified enrichment provisions are contained. Another concerns the distinction between ‘restitution’ and ‘unjustified enrichment’. A third asks whether the Code should have enshrined a rule prohibiting restitution of the use value, while a fourth concerns the issue of indirect enrichments. Yet another question concerns the inclusion of cases of qualified intent, while the last focuses on defences.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"402 - 421"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2033081","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Unjustified enrichment in Chinese law has been substantially expanded in recent years by the Chinese Civil Code, as well as by other primary and secondary sources, making comparative studies more viable. This article asks a number of questions about the Chinese law through the lens of a common lawyer. One is the use of the heading ‘quasi-contract’ to describe the chapter of the Code in which the unjustified enrichment provisions are contained. Another concerns the distinction between ‘restitution’ and ‘unjustified enrichment’. A third asks whether the Code should have enshrined a rule prohibiting restitution of the use value, while a fourth concerns the issue of indirect enrichments. Yet another question concerns the inclusion of cases of qualified intent, while the last focuses on defences.