MAKING SENSE OF MESNE PROFITS: REMEDIES

This is the second of two articles about cases in which awards of “mesne profits” have been made against defendants who have occupied claimants’ land. The first article argues that the facts of cases where such awards have been made variously support claims in tort, contract or unjust enrichment and that practical consequences can flow from categorising the cases in one way or another. One is that different rules affect the assessment of remedies awarded to claimants depending on the claim that was made and the remedy that was awarded. The present article develops this point by examining the assessment principles governing “mesne profits” awards, according to whether these are classified as compensatory damages in tort, restitutionary damages in tort, orders that a defendant perform a contractual duty to pay a debt, compensatory damages for breach of contract, or orders that a defendant make restitution of an unjust enrichment.

Remedial consistency in private law

This article is concerned with the concept of ‘remedial consistency,’ the consistency of remedial rights with primary rights in the sense I explain. I argue that the requirement of remedial consistency has important implications across private law. It suggests that the ‘continuity thesis’ does not provide a justification for the right to compensation for a wrong, and I argue that rights to compensation are not generally based on wrongdoing. I also consider whether the absence of a right to specific performance is consistent with the existence of a duty of performance, and I discuss the need for alternative remedies to be mutually consistent. I also discuss the implications of remedial consistency for the concept of unjust enrichment, and I argue on the basis of remedial consistency for the general availability of proprietary claims for invalid transfers.

The Defence of Illegality in Private Law

The defence of illegality is invoked across private law, but has a reputation for being confused. This article argues that the defence can be rendered intelligible and sharply focused by understanding its underlying rationale, and applying that discretely and to different effect in each of tort, contract, unjust enrichment, and trusts.

La prohibición del enriquecimiento injusto de la Administración Pública y el reconocimiento extrajudicial de créditos

LABURPENA: Toki-administrazioan gero eta ohikoagoa da kontratuen ondoriozko ordainketa-konpromisoak hartzea aldez aurretik aurrekontuan kontsignatu gabe, edo lehendik dagoen aurrekontua gaindituta, eta horrek agerian uzten du gastu horiek erabat deusezak direla. Hala ere, kontratu horiek baliozkoak ez izateak ez du administrazioa salbuesten beste batzuek fede onez egindako prestazioak ordaintzeko betebeharretik, betiere horrela administrazioa bidegabe aberastea eragozten bada. Horregatik, kredituak auzibidetik kanpo aitortzeko prozedura eratu zen, administrazioak bidegabe aberastea eragotzi nahi duen salbuespenezko mekanismo modura. Hori horrela, lan honek xedetzat du mekanismo horren zilegitasuna aztertzea bidegabeko aberastearen teoriaren ikuspegitik –hori eginbehar-iturri autonomotzat hartuta–, bai eta kredituak auzibidetik kanpo aitortzeko instituzio horrek azkenaldian eragin dituen jurisprudentzia-eztabaidak aztertzea ere. ABSTRACT: When the Spanish Administration assumes payment commitments derived from contracts, without having the prior budget or exceeding the pre-existing credit, those expenses will be automatically void. However, the invalidity of these contracts could not exempt the Administration from the obligation to compensate those services provided by third parties in good faith, if this avoids the unjust enrichment. For this reason, the extrajudicial recognition of credits was created as an exceptional mechanism that seeks to avoid the unjust enrichment. Therefore, this paper analyzes the legitimacy of this mechanism from the perspective of the theory of unjust enrichment -understood as an autonomous source of obligations-, as well as we also examine the most important Spanish case law disputes about this institution of extrajudicial recognition of credits in recent times. RESUMEN: La cada vez más extendida práctica administrativa local consistente en asumir compromisos de pago derivados de contratos sin contar con la previa consignación presupuestaria, o excediéndose del crédito preexistente, pone de relieve que nos encontramos ante gastos nulos de pleno derecho. Sin embargo, la invalidez de estos contratos no podía eximir a la Administración de su obligación de resarcir aquellas prestaciones realizadas por terceros de buena fe, si con ello se evita el enriquecimiento injusto de la Administración. Por ello, se configuró el procedimiento de reconocimiento extrajudicial de créditos, como mecanismo excepcional que busca evitar que las Administraciones se enriquezcan injustamente. Así pues, el presente trabajo tiene por objeto analizar la legitimidad de este mecanismo desde la perspectiva de la teoría del enriquecimiento injusto -entendido éste como una fuente de obligaciones autónoma-, así como examinar las disputas jurisprudenciales que ha suscitado esta institución del reconocimiento extrajudicial de créditos en los últimos tiempos.

LIABILITY TO DISGORGE PROFITS UPON BREACH OF CONTRACT OR A DELICT

Remedies regarding contract and tort are, generally speaking, concerned with the incidence of liability for loss or damage suffered, whereas the claim in unjust enrichment is said to require that the enrichment has occurred at the expense of the creditor. Consequently claims for breach of contract and tort are brought for damages. The following claims will, however, be denied: profits from the party who breached thecontract, the tortfeasor or which the otherwise unjustly enriched defendant has gained as a result of breaching the contract, committing the tort or invading the rights of the plaintiff. There are, however, numerous exceptions to this general rule to be found in various jurisdictions. Consequently the question arises whether these exceptions do or do not amount to a new general rule concerning disgorgement of illegally obtained profits.