Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comparative Overview

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cambridge Law Journal Pub Date : 1995-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S0008197300083173
Brice Dickson
{"title":"Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comparative Overview","authors":"Brice Dickson","doi":"10.1017/S0008197300083173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":46389,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Law Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"100 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"1995-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0008197300083173","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197300083173","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不当得利索赔:比较综述
本文考察了各种法律制度,以期评估不当得利原则目前在每一种法律制度中所起的作用。通过集中讨论不当得利索赔要求的特点,本报告试图表明,尽管不同国家处理这类索赔要求的方式存在重大差异,但这些制度也有许多共同之处。在英美法系,不正当得利原则经历了漫长的争取承认的斗争,而在大陆法系,它已经被承认了几个世纪。这可能是因为在大陆法系国家中,人们期望这一原则在义务法中只起一种剩余的、因而不具威胁性的作用,而在英美法系国家中,人们则要求这一原则作为整个赔偿法的基础。然而,我们不应该假设所有的英美法系都具有一套特征,而所有的大陆法系都具有另一套特征。在某些方面,从每个类别中提取的系统之间的共同点比从同一类别中提取的系统之间的共同点更多。正如人们所预料的那样,混合法律体系往往表现出两者兼而有之的特点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Law Journal publishes articles on all aspects of law. Special emphasis is placed on contemporary developments, but the journal''s range includes jurisprudence and legal history. An important feature of the journal is the Case and Comment section, in which members of the Cambridge Law Faculty and other distinguished contributors analyse recent judicial decisions, new legislation and current law reform proposals. The articles and case notes are designed to have the widest appeal to those interested in the law - whether as practitioners, students, teachers, judges or administrators - and to provide an opportunity for them to keep abreast of new ideas and the progress of legal reform. Each issue also contains an extensive section of book reviews.
期刊最新文献
RECYCLED MALICE RELATIONAL TRADE NETWORKS SECTION 36 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 THE UK INTERNAL MARKET: A GLOBAL OUTLIER? WEDNESBURY UNREASONABLENESS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1