Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:35:45.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Doctrine of Unjustified Enrichment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

H. C. Gutteridge  and
R. J. A. David
Get access

Extract

The origin and growth in continental law of the doctrine of unjustified enrichment is not merely an object lesson of the greatest importance to comparative lawyers. It is also of peculiar interest to English lawyers because it affords an admirable illustration of the working of the system of precedent in the continental countries. Moreover, it furnishes abundant proof—if any be needed—of the fact that an elaborate system of rules based on judicial precedent can, and does, exist side by side with the provisions of codes which in their inception were designed to prevent case law from coming into existence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 1934 , pp. 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1934

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The terra used in French law is ‘enrichissement sans cause,’ but legal opinion in France seems to prefer ‘enrichissement illegitime’; the English term ‘unjustified enrichment’ which is used in this article is perhaps the nearestequivalent to ‘enrichissement illégitime.’

2 E.g. Code Civil français, Art. 5.

3 Winfield, The Province of the Law of Tort, pp. 127 et seq.; Landon in the Bell Yard, ‘No. VIII (November, 1931), p. 19Google Scholar; Winfield, ibid. No. IX (May, 1932), p. 32; Stallybrass, Landon v. Winfield: An Intervention, ibid. No. X (November, 1932), p. 18.

4 We trust that it will not be thought that we have ignored the law of ScHand, and in particular the decision of the House of Lords in Cantiare San Rocco v. Clyde Shipbuilding and Engineering Co. [1924] A. C. 226, but in our new the background furnished by French law is preferable for comparative purposes as it covers a wider area than that of the corresponding rules in Scots law.