Unjust Enrichment in the Conflict of Laws: A Comparative View of German Law and the American Restatement 2d

1978 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Hay

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.





2004 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-46
Author(s):  
Florian Mächtel

In its § 142(1) theAmerican Restatement of the Law of Restitutionprovides that “[t]he right of a person to restitution from another because of a benefit received is terminated or diminished if, after the receipt of the benefit, circumstances have so changed that it would be inequitable to require the other to make full restitution.” The notion that the recipient of an unjustified benefit must in principle return not more than the enrichment that has actually “survived” in his hands, is not only fundamental to the American law of restitution, but can also be found in English and German law.



2021 ◽  
pp. 175-198
Author(s):  
Andrew Burrows

This essay revisits the relationship between the conflict of laws and the law of unjust enrichment (or, more widely, the law of restitution) in light of shifts in the legal landscape over the past forty years. It considers the rules of jurisdiction and of choice of law applied by the English courts, accounting for the effects of the UK’s departure from the European Union.



2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Feiler

Wherever long-term contractual relationships exist, there may also be a need for a transfer (assignment) of such contracts. In many legal systems, this is achieved by a uniform transfer of the complete contract (sometimes also called “assignment” of the contract). Increasingly, contracts are also being transferred in international business transactions. The cases to be found are manifold. After a look at the legal institution of the transfer of contracts in German law and some possible case scenarios, the work examines which law is applicable to such a transfer. It covers the more well-known institutions of assignment of claims, accession to and assumption of debt, and then sheds light on whether the transfer of an entire contractual relationship is also covered by the unified European conflict of laws provisions of the Rome Regulations. In addition, the contract transferred is examined: With the transfer of such contract, the question of a change of law applicable to the contract transferred arises.



1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 439-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Knöfel

Formerly, EC activity in the area of private law used to be content with approximating member States' substantive laws in specified areas, and, therefore, eventual conflictual implications demanded considerable interpretative efforts. Modern Community legislation, however, increasingly complements the intended substantive-law harmonisation with provisions on conflict of laws. Given the existence of the (Rome) Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, implemented in the United Kingdom by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990, this new tendency, where it concerns areas falling within the Convention, raises complex questions on both legislative technique and policy. The Convention, in Article 20, expressly reserves the precedence of Community choice of law rules. However, merely to point to this priority rule appears to be too simple a solution as conflicts, before being solved, have to be defined, and that is what this article aims at. Further, as an analysis that deals with European law would be incomplete without taking into account the impact on member States' law, reference will be made to domestic English and, for the purposes of comparison, to domestic German law. The latter appears to qualify for such a comparative approach because, due to the Rome Convention already having been part of the domestic law for a considerable period, certain experience might be expected within that legal system in dealing with contract conflicts issues thereunder.



2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-548
Author(s):  
Pablo Letelier

AbstractThis article seeks to illustrate the kinds of difficulties that may follow from renouncing a unified approach to restitutionary claims for unjust enrichment. To do so, it draws on the experience of the French legal system, where the notion of unjustified enrichment describes a maxim inspiring various doctrines which have evolved in relative isolation from each other. Relying on this experience, the article argues that the objections recently raised by Nils Jansen against the German law of unjustified enrichment should not lead English lawyers to downplay the value of a unified approach to the subject.





Author(s):  
Каролин Лауэ ◽  
Karolin Laue

In 2009 Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 13, 2007 on payment services in the internal market was implemented into the German civil law. The article deals with theoretical and practical problems of the recovery of money paid by mistake based on the principles of unjust enrichment according to the German law with regard to the new regulation. Тhe German Civil Codex (BGB) distinguishes between “performance” and “non-performance” conditions. By presenting basic arguments the author shows that this is of crucial importance for the concept of the recovery of money paid by mistake under the principles of unjustified enrichment. Due to the new regulation the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in Germany has recently changed its legal opinion. The article compares the legal position before and after the implementation of the directive on payment services into the German law and its impact on the German legal concept of the recovery of money paid by mistake under the principles of unjust enrichment.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document