Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The reception of unjust enrichment into Belgian law has been upheld multiple times by the Court of Cassation, which has ruled that unjust enrichment is a general principle of law. [27] [28] [29] The Court has stated that the legal basis for unjust enrichment is equity (ius aequum). According to the Court, five elements constitute unjust enrichment:
The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust. The modern law of unjust enrichment encompasses what was once known as the law of quasi-contract. Its precise scope remains a matter of controversy. [1]
The historical core of the law of unjust enrichment consists of the quasi-contractual actions of money had and received, money paid to the defendant's use, quantum meruit and quantum valebat. These personal common law actions generated an obligation on the part of the defendant to give restitution of a gain acquired at the expense of the plaintiff.
Goff and Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment (formerly Goff and Jones on the Law of Restitution, usually simply abbreviated to Goff & Jones) is the leading authoritative English law textbook on restitution and unjust enrichment. First written by Robert Goff and Gareth Jones, it is presently in its tenth edition.
Failure of consideration is a technical legal term referring to situations in which one person confers a benefit upon another upon some condition or basis ("consideration") which fails to materialise or subsist. It is also referred to as "failure of basis". [1] It is an 'unjust factor' for the purposes of the law of unjust enrichment. Where ...
Unjust enrichment is a legal cause of action, and one of the pillars of obligations alongside consents (e.g. contracts, trusts) and wrongs (e.g. torts, breach of equitable duties). The main article for this category is Unjust enrichment .
In United States regulatory law, disgorgement is often a civil remedy imposed by some regulatory agencies to seize illegally obtained profits. When a private party sues for net profits, this is instead ordinarily known as restitution for unjust enrichment. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has noted in Liu v.
equitable tracing as a remedy for unjust enrichment; The two main equitable remedies are injunctions and specific performance, and in casual legal parlance references to equitable remedies are often expressed as referring to those two remedies alone. Injunctions may be mandatory (requiring a person to do something) or prohibitory (stopping them ...