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]
In Canada, quantum meruit is not based on contract law but rather depends on equitable principles of unjust enrichment. Canadian law generally upholds the old maxim that estoppel allows an implied promise to act as a shield against litigation but never a sword. Therefore an implied promise would not create a cause of action.
In New York, the elements of an unjust enrichment claim are “that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit ...
This enrichment at the claimant's expense is unjust. There is no applicable defence. [9] The historical core of restitutionary claims to reverse unjust enrichment lies in the law of quasi-contract. These were personal common law actions. In English law, the doctrinal basis of such claims is now said to be unjust enrichment. [10]
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.
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 ...
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.