Talk:Restitution and unjust enrichment

message: In terms of Australian Common Law the judgement by Gummow J in Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd, questioned whether "unjust enrichment" will ever become a separate legal principle in itself. Therefore this must be considered in terms of whether to merge it with restitution or keep it as a entity on its own.
Also other cases in regard to unjust enrichment and restitution need to be taken into consideration on the standpoint of Australian Common Law: These include: 
1. The judgement by Dawson J in David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353 406: "unjust enrichment does not itself constitute a cause of action"
2. Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon (1993) 176 CLR 344 at 375 where Deane and Dawson JJ stated where a action by the respondent in restitution was founded on the category of unjust enrichment.
--Beckhendrix996 (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing about this is, the Australian courts went a little odd. They'll realise their mistakes in a while, and change their minds. In the meantime, any High Court judges reading this are kindly referred to the leading English law case, Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale. Wikidea 11:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of the decision reached in Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 516 

message: If anyone knows the answer (I guess a peek in Birks' textbook is the most likely source) would be very interesting to know what the priority of claims are between a claim for unjust enrichment and a contractual or tortious claim. For example, let's say I accidentally overpaid a company (e.g. Lehman Brothers) which then immediately went insolvent. would my claim for restitution of my £10 rank ahead of contractual counterparty claims, or would I join the queue and be paid out at the same recovery rate of other creditors? The equity of the situation would suggest I should be paid first (since the counterparty never had any entitlement to the money in the first place and I shouldn't be penalised for assuming its credit risk). But I dare say there's no case law on it? ElectricRay (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC
Recent changes to this article (and in particular to the page on the English law of unjust enrichment) hopefully answer this. But basically, where A labours under a causative mistake of fact or law and pays money to B, A can bring a common law action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use (i.e., an action in "unjust enrichment"). This is a personal common law claim. To take your example and assume B is insolvent, A would merely have a personal claim and so stand in the queue along with all the other creditors. The further question is whether A should have a proprietary remedy. At common law, this is not possible: quasi-contractual actions such as an action for money had and received merely generated an obligation on the recipient to pay a liquidated sum (viz., a debt; the money equivalent of the mistaken payment). In Equity, it might be possible that B holds the funds on trust. A case directly on point is Chase Manhattan v Israel-British Bank [1981] Ch 105, where Goulding J held that (in this example) B immediately held the money on a constructive trust. This has been widely criticised (e.g., it undermines statutory insolvency regimes). In Westdeutsche [1996] Lord Browne-Wilkinson disapproved of the reasoning but suggested that it might have been correctly decided. Ultimately, it remains a controversial question whether a mistaken payment generates a constructive trust, but several subsequent cases have suggested it can. If it is possible, the better view is that this would only be once B has knowledge of the mistaken payment. Even then, it is not obvious why a mistaken payee should gain priority over a claim from, say, a victim of a tort or a contractual counter-party, especially when legal title to the funds have passed and the legislature has established a policy-driven insolvency regime to ensure pari passu distribution. --Jason246xy (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting additional question

message: The section on the United States contains a confusing example.  The example is as follows:
B contracts with T to provide a year's worth of labor at a specific price P. T is to pay B for his labor at the end of the year. After 9.5 months B decides to quit the job. B sues T and recovers the fair market value of the labor he performed for T during those 9.5 months. Note that in this instance, because B is in breach of his contract with T, B cannot recover more than the contract rate for his labor. The non-breaching party is protected from paying more than the contract rate for labor. The supporting reasoning is that it would be unfair to make the party who has lived up to his end of the agreement pay more than he agreed to in the first place. However, the breaching party is afforded no such protection.
The fourth sentence states that “B sues T and recovers the fair market value of the labor he performed for T during those 9.5 months” [emphasis mine].  This conflicts with the following sentence that that states “B cannot recover more than the contract rate for his labor” [emphasis mine].  
For instance, suppose that the agreed labor rate was $30 per hour and that the fair market rate was $50 per hour.  Because the fair market rate is higher than the agreed labor rate, B should not receive more than $30 per hour for his 9.5 months labor.  Accordingly, the fourth sentence should probably be revised to state “B sues T and recovers the contract rate for the labor he performed for T during those 9.5 months” [emphasis again mine].
Is my thinking correct here or did I miss something?
BillinSanDiego (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Error in Example 

message: SECTION <P>
"Determination of liability"
HAS THIS SENTENCE 
A claim based on a wrong always results in an obligation to make compensation, but may additionally result in an obligation to make restitution.
<P> and on the other hand it will result in an obligation to make reimbursement which will allow the normal citizen to the courts for its wrongdoing which it never intended to do so <P>
I SUGGEST A PERIOD AFTER "restitution" AND DELETE THE REST UNLESS SOMEONE IS ABLE TO REWRITE THE SENTENCE.<P>
THANKSNnoddy (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: INCOMPHREHENSIBLE SENTENCE

message: PREVIOUS POST<P>
The opening paragraph contains a circular reference: "Unjust enrichment is a legal term denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another"
defining an Unjust Enrichment as when someone is Unjustly Enriched is not very informative.
--mrtimuk 09:34, 19 Feb 2009
 Sugested definitions:
Unjust enrichment <Br>
1.n. a benefit by mistake or chance. Morally and ethically the one who gains a benefit that he or she has not paid or worked for should not keep it to the rightful owner's detriment.  The party that received money, services or property that should have been delivered to or belonged to another must make restitution to the rightful owner. A court may order such restitution in a lawsuit brought by the party who should rightly have the money or property.  USLegal definitions: .
2. n. A general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another's expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.
The Free Dictionary by Farlex: Nnoddy (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I simplified the lead. There was a lot of repetition Bhny (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Circular Reference

message: the famous book that is directly linked to this topic, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, by  Linda Goetz Holmes, regarding WWII and the unjust enrichment of Mitsubishi and other Japanese companies by the use of the slave labor of Allied POWs. Starhistory22 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a direct link and discussion of 

message: I propose merging Restitution into Unjust enrichment with the combined page renamed Restitution and unjust enrichment. The only real difference between these two topics is that the former includes Restitution for wrongs (Restitution#For wrongs), but the proposed title would include any form of restitution.
In the United States, this combined approach is supported by the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment (2011). (Indeed, it's in the title!) Additionally, this helps to distinguish restitution from crime victims' compensation, which is commonly called "restitution" in the United States (even though it is actually a form of damages awarded at a criminal trial for harm to the victim, not restitution for the criminal's gains).
In England (and perhaps modern common law generally), to quote the current Restitution page, "The orthodox view suggests that there is only one principle on which the law of restitution is dependent, namely the principle of unjust enrichment." (In other words, even restitution for wrongs can reasonably be included in/supported by the principle of unjust enrichment.)
Suggested introduction:
:Restitution and unjust enrichment is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with damages (the law of compensation), restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution.
:This principle derives from late Roman law, as stated in the Latin maxim, Jure naturae aequum est nemi nem cum alterius detrimentum et injuria fieri locupletiorem ("By natural law it is just that no one should be enriched by another's loss or injury"). In civil law systems, it is also referred to as "enrichment without cause" or "unjustified enrichment."
-- SilverLocust (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger 22 May 2023