什么是“不当得利”?

Steve Hedley
{"title":"什么是“不当得利”?","authors":"Steve Hedley","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2016.1276277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By many accounts, unjust enrichment is well-developed as an aspect of private law, distinct from property, contract and tort. But the reasons justifying it are not. The modern scholarship gives elaborate accounts describing the law, but has nothing substantial to offer as to why the law is there—or, indeed, whether it should be there at all. Charlie Webb’s Reason and Restitution: A Theory of Unjust Enrichment, recently published by Oxford University Press, now seeks to fill this gap. His conclusion is a striking one: while it is right that we have such a law, the reasons for it have nothing to do with unjust enrichment, and rather a lot to do with property, contract and wrongs. The idea that there is a distinct set of reasons, additional to those motivating the rest of private law, turns out to be an illusion.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2016.1276277","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What is ‘unjust enrichment’ for?\",\"authors\":\"Steve Hedley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2016.1276277\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"By many accounts, unjust enrichment is well-developed as an aspect of private law, distinct from property, contract and tort. But the reasons justifying it are not. The modern scholarship gives elaborate accounts describing the law, but has nothing substantial to offer as to why the law is there—or, indeed, whether it should be there at all. Charlie Webb’s Reason and Restitution: A Theory of Unjust Enrichment, recently published by Oxford University Press, now seeks to fill this gap. His conclusion is a striking one: while it is right that we have such a law, the reasons for it have nothing to do with unjust enrichment, and rather a lot to do with property, contract and wrongs. The idea that there is a distinct set of reasons, additional to those motivating the rest of private law, turns out to be an illusion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2016.1276277\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2016.1276277\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2016.1276277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从许多方面来看,不当得利作为私法的一个方面得到了很好的发展,与财产法、合同法和侵权法截然不同。但证明这一点的理由却并非如此。现代学术对法律给出了详尽的描述,但对于法律为什么存在——或者,实际上,它是否应该存在——却没有实质性的解释。牛津大学出版社最近出版的查理·韦伯的《理性与赔偿:一种不正当致富理论》试图填补这一空白。他的结论是惊人的:虽然我们有这样一部法律是正确的,但它的原因与不正当致富无关,而与财产、合同和错误有很大关系。有一种观点认为,除了那些推动私法其余部分的原因之外,还有一套独特的原因,这被证明是一种错觉。
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
What is ‘unjust enrichment’ for?
By many accounts, unjust enrichment is well-developed as an aspect of private law, distinct from property, contract and tort. But the reasons justifying it are not. The modern scholarship gives elaborate accounts describing the law, but has nothing substantial to offer as to why the law is there—or, indeed, whether it should be there at all. Charlie Webb’s Reason and Restitution: A Theory of Unjust Enrichment, recently published by Oxford University Press, now seeks to fill this gap. His conclusion is a striking one: while it is right that we have such a law, the reasons for it have nothing to do with unjust enrichment, and rather a lot to do with property, contract and wrongs. The idea that there is a distinct set of reasons, additional to those motivating the rest of private law, turns out to be an illusion.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
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