Edited by Jan M. Smits
Chapter 76: Unjustified enrichment
The law of unjustified enrichment is in many legal systems the least settled area of obligations, and therefore most countries, in developing this area of law, can benefit from engaging in comparative analysis. It should be said that, historically, civilian and common law jurisdictions approached unjustified enrichment so differently that meaningful comparison seemed an impossibly difficult task; and within each of these legal traditions, too, there has been very little uniformity. However, lately the conviction has begun to assert itself that, despite obvious differences, the two legal families have as much to learn from each other as do the individual legal systems within each tradition. The common law, which gave the name of ‘restitution’ to the area of law that roughly coincided with what civilian systems designated as being concerned with unjustified enrichment, has never exhibited a clear (let alone uniform) picture of what lay at its core, or of how it should be approached. In the first half of the 20th century the United States took the lead with the Restatement of the Law of Restitution (1937) and the work of authors such as Dawson (1951) and Palmer (1995) made important contributions.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.