|
Unjust Enrichment
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 attributed to Sextus Pomponius, ''Jure naturae aequum est neminem 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. In pre-modern English common law, restitutionary claims were often brought in an action for '' assumpsit'' and later in a claim for money had and received. The seminal case giving ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Damages
At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognized at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognized for the award of damages. Compensatory damages are further categorized into special damages, which are economic losses such as loss of earnings, property damage and medical expenses, and general damages, which are non-economic damages such as pain and suffering and emotional distress. Rather than being compensatory, at common law damages may instead be nominal, contemptuous or exemplary. History Among the Saxons, a monetary value called a '' weregild'' was assigned to every human being and every piece of property in the Salic Code. If property was stolen or someone was injured or killed, the guilty person had to pay th ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Use (law)
Use, as a term in the property law of common law countries, amounts to a recognition of the duty of a person to whom property has been conveyed for certain purposes, to carry out those purposes. In this context "use" is equivalent to "benefit". Uses were equitable or beneficial interests in land. In early law a property owner could not dispose of his estate by Will and testament, will nor could religious houses acquire it. As a method of avoiding certain common law rules, the practice arose of making feoffments to the use of, or upon trust for, persons other than those to whom the seisin or legal possession was delivered, to which the equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor gave effect. The Statute of Uses was passed in 1536 in an attempt to remedy the abuses which it was said were occasioned by this evasion of the law. However, the Statute failed to accomplish its purpose. Development of the use Historian Alfred Lawson Brown, A. L. Brown summarises the use as a "where one or ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Illicit Enrichment
Illicit enrichment generally refers to a situation in which a person has enjoyed some sort of wealth that cannot or has not been justified as coming from a legitimate source of income. The exact definitions for illicit enrichment, and the terminology used to describe the concept, vary considerably between international legal instruments and domestic laws. Varying terminology The terminology surrounding the concept varies considerably. Many countries, of course, use the term "illicit enrichment" (e.g. Afghanistan), or similar non-English terms such as “enrichissement illicite” (e.g. Mauritania), “enriquecimiento ilícito” (e.g. Mexico), or “enriquecimento ilícito” (e.g. Mozambique). Other countries, however, refer to the same concept by using phrases such as the acquisition, possession or control of “unexplained wealth” (e.g. Sierra Leone), “unexplained assets” (e.g. Kenya), or “unexplained property” (e.g. Antigua and Barbuda). Other countries again refer to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Election Of Remedies
In the law of civil procedure, election of remedies is the situation in which a winning party in a lawsuit must choose the means by which its injury will be remedied. For example, if a court finds that the plaintiff's painting was stolen by the defendant, then the plaintiff has two possible routes to restore the loss. The plaintiff can ''elect'' to either receive monetary damages equal to the entire value of the painting, ''or'' the plaintiff can ask the court to order the return of the stolen property (plus some minor amount of compensation for the suffering caused by its deprivation). However, the plaintiff cannot have both, and must therefore make an election of one or the other. Under the old common law of England, a party had to make an election of remedies at the time that the complaint In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) beli ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Restitution For Wrongs
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 attributed to Sextus Pomponius, ''Jure naturae aequum est neminem 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. In pre-modern English common law, restitutionary claims were often brought in an action for ''assumpsit'' and later in a claim for money had and received. The seminal case giving a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bona Fide Purchaser
A ''bona fide'' purchaser (BFP)referred to more completely as a ''bona fide'' purchaser for value without notice is a term used predominantly in common law jurisdictions in the law of real property and personal property to refer to an innocent party who purchases property without notice of any other party's claim to the title of that property. A BFP must purchase for value, meaning that they must pay for the property rather than simply be the beneficiary of a gift. Even when a party fraudulently conveys property to a BFP (for example, by selling to the BFP property that has already been conveyed to someone else), that BFP will, depending on the laws of the relevant jurisdiction, take good (valid) title to the property despite the competing claims of the other party. As such, an owner publicly recording their own interests (which in some types of property must be on a court-recognised Register) protects themselves from losing those to an indirect buyer, such as a qualifying buye ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Change Of Position
Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment which operates to reduce a defendant's liability to the extent to which his or her circumstances have changed as a consequence of an enrichment. History The historical core of the law of unjust enrichment consists of the quasi-contractual actions of money had and received, money paid to the defendant's use, quantum meruit and quantum valebat. These personal common law Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on prece ... actions generated an obligation on the part of the defendant to give restitution of a gain acquired at the expense of the plaintiff. This liability was strict and independent of any wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. Change of position provides a defence to a defendant where it would be inequ ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Restitution
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 attributed to Sextus Pomponius, ''Jure naturae aequum est neminem 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. In pre-modern English common law, restitutionary claims were often brought in an action for '' assumpsit'' and later in a claim for money had and received. The seminal case giving ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Undue Influence
Undue influence (UI) is a psychological process by which a person's free will and judgement is supplanted by that of another. It is a legal term and the strict definition varies by jurisdiction. Generally speaking, it is a means by which a person gains control over their victims' decision making through manipulation tactics and unfair pressure, typically for financial gain. Historically, UI has been poorly understood, even in some legal circles. Undue influence is typically perpetrated by a person who is trusted by the victim and is dependent on them for emotional and physical needs. Caregivers are often found to have unduly influenced their patients, however, anyone in a position of trust and authority over the victim (e.g. fiduciary) may be guilty. This includes the victims' attorney, accountant, nursing home attendant, or even children. UI is a ''process'', not a single event. A manipulator may spend weeks, months, or even years before successfully unduly-influencing their vic ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Failure Of Consideration
Failure of consideration is a technical legal term referring to situations in which one person confers a benefit upon another upon some condition or basis ("consideration Consideration is a concept of English law, English common law and is a necessity for simple contracts but not for special contracts (contracts by deed). The concept has been adopted by other common law jurisdictions. It is commonly referred to a ...") which fails to materialise or subsist. It is also referred to as "failure of basis". It is an ' unjust factor' for the purposes of the law of unjust enrichment. Where there is a "total failure of consideration" the claimant can seek restitution of the benefit by bringing an action in unjust enrichment against the defendant. Historically speaking, this was as a quasi-contractual claim known as an action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use for a consideration that wholly failed. The orthodox view is that it is necessary for any relevant contract to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Mistake (contract Law)
In contract law, a mistake is an erroneous belief, ''at contracting'', that certain facts are true. It can be argued as a defense, and if raised successfully, can lead to the agreement in question being found void ''ab initio'' or voidable, or alternatively, an equitable remedy may be provided by the courts. Common law has identified three different types of mistake in contract: the 'unilateral mistake', the 'mutual mistake', and the 'common mistake'. The distinction between the 'common mistake' and the 'mutual mistake' is important. Another breakdown in contract law divides mistakes into four traditional categories: unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, mistranscription, and misunderstanding. The law of mistake in any given contract is governed by the law governing the contract. The law from country to country can differ significantly. For instance, contracts entered into under a relevant mistake have not been voidable in English law since '' Great Peace Shipping Ltd v Tsavlir ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ex Aequo Et Bono
''Ex aequo et bono'' (Latin for "according to the right and good" or "from equity and conscience") is a Latin phrase that is used as a legal term of art. In the context of arbitration, it refers to the power of arbitrators to dispense with application of the law, if appropriate, and decide solely on what they consider to be fair and equitable in the case at hand. However, a decision ''ex aequo et bono'' is distinguished from a decision on the basis of equity (''equity intra legem'') and even tribunals with ''ex aequo et bono'' powers generally consider the law too. "Whereas an authorisation to decide a question ''ex aequo et bono'' is an authorisation to decide without deference to the rules of law, an authorisation to decide on a basis of equity does not dispense the judge from giving a decision based upon law, even though the law be modified". Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provides that the court may decide cases ''ex aequo et bono'' ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |