中国民法典中的不当得利:来自普通法的问题

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Asia Pacific Law Review Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/10192557.2022.2033081
Zhicheng Wu, W. Swadling
{"title":"中国民法典中的不当得利:来自普通法的问题","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

近年来,《中国民法典》以及其他一手资料和第二手资料对中国法律中的不当得利问题进行了大量拓展,使比较研究更具可行性。这篇文章通过一个普通律师的视角提出了一些关于中国法律的问题。一个是使用“准合同”标题来描述《法典》中包含不合理的致富条款的章节。另一个问题涉及“赔偿”和“不正当得利”之间的区别。第三个问题是,《治罪法》是否应规定一项禁止归还使用价值的规则,而第四个问题涉及间接浓缩问题。另一个问题涉及限定意图案件的纳入,而最后一个问题则侧重于抗辩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Unjustified enrichment in the Chinese Civil Code: questions from the common law
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊最新文献
Constitutional foundings in Northeast Asia Constitutional democracy in Indonesia Authoritarianism and legality Asia-Pacific trusts law Volume 1 theory and practice in context Varieties of authoritarian legality
×
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:481959085
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