The impact of legal culture on the law of unjustified enrichment: the role of reasons

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511779213.009

7 - The impact of legal culture on the law of unjustified enrichment: the role of reasons

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2010

Helen Scott and

Daniel Visser

Edited by

Elise Bant and

Matthew Harding

Show author details

Elise Bant: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Matthew Harding: Affiliation:
University of Melbourne

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

Culture is a word with a variety of meanings. In this contribution we adopt Hofstede's definition of culture, namely that it consists of ‘all the learnt patterns of thinking and acting’ in a particular group, or, in slightly different words, ‘the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another’. That said, we are interested here not in culture per se but specifically in legal culture: for present purposes we define legal culture as the collective habits of thought and action amongst legal opinion-makers – the lawyers, judges and academics in a particular legal system – as well as amongst those who use the legal system or are subjected to it. The legal culture of a jurisdiction is created by a great many different societal forces, such as historical accident, political imperatives (including commitment to democracy and human rights), appetite for change coupled with a degree of tolerance of uncertainty, and attitudes towards corruption. That culture, in turn, has a direct bearing on the substantive rules of law that emerge within the system. In this contribution we use one aspect of legal culture, namely the culture of giving reasons in judgments, to investigate how legal culture shapes substantive law, specifically the law of unjust (or unjustified) enrichment. We consider the law of unjustified enrichment in two countries in particular, South Africa and France, with some reference also to the law of England and Germany.

Type: Chapter
Information: Exploring Private Law , pp. 153 - 174

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779213.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2010

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Nelken, D, ‘Legal Culture’ in Smits, J (ed), Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2006) 372 ffGoogle Scholar

Hofstede, G, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (Harper Collins, London 1981) 3–19Google Scholar

Visser, D, ‘Cultural Forces in the Making of Legal Systems’ (2003) 78 Tulane L Rev41Google Scholar

Bryan, M, ‘Unjust Enrichment and Unconscionability in Australia: A False Dichotomy’ in Neyers, JW, McInnes, M and Pitel, SGA (eds), Understanding Unjust Enrichment (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2004) 47 ffGoogle Scholar

Markesinis, B, Lorenz, W and Dannemann, G (eds), The German Law of Obligations (Vol 1) (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997) 717–20

Krebs, T, Restitution at the Crossroads: A Comparative Study (Cavendish, London 2001) 207–17Google Scholar

Plessis, JE Du, ‘Towards a Rational Structure of Liability for Unjustified Enrichment: Thoughts From Two Mixed Jurisdictions’ (2005) 122(1) South African LJ142, 172–9Google Scholar

Scott, H, ‘Unjust Enrichment by Transfer in South African Law: Unjust Factors and Legal Grounds’ (DPhil thesis, University of Oxford 2005)Google Scholar

Visser, D, ‘Rethinking Unjustified Enrichment: A Perspective of the Competition between Contractual and Enrichment Remedies’ [1992] Acta Juridica 203, 218–25 and Visser (n 12) 108–11Google Scholar

Zweigert, K and Kötz, H, An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd edn Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998) 233Google Scholar

Goff, R and Jones, G, The Law of Restitution (1st edn Sweet & Maxwell, London 1966)Google Scholar

Birks, P, An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1985)Google Scholar

Krebs, Thomas: Krebs, T, Restitution at the Crossroads (Cavendish, London 2001) ch 16Google Scholar

Weber, M, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (4th edn JCB Mohr, Tübingen 1956) 457Google Scholar

Meier, S, ‘No Basis: A Comparative View’ in Burrows, A and Lord Roger of Earlsferry, (eds), Mapping The Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006) 343, 350–1Google Scholar

Scott, H, ‘Restitution of Extra-Contractual Transfers: Limits of the Absence of Legal Ground Analysis’ (2006) 14 RLR93, 95–6Google Scholar

Alexander, L and Sherwin, E, Demystifying Legal Reasoning (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008)CrossRef Google Scholar

Duxbury, N, The Nature and Authority of Precedent (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008)CrossRef Google Scholar

Dawson, JP, The Oracles of the Law (Greenwood Press, Westport 1968) ch 6Google Scholar

Dyzenhaus, D and Taggart, M, ‘Reasoned Decisions and Legal Theory’ in Edlin, D (ed), Common Law Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007) 134Google Scholar

Simpson, AWB, ‘The Ratio Decidendi of a Case and the Doctrine of Binding Precedent’ in Guest, AG (ed), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1961) 166Google Scholar

Ibbetson, D, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1999) 188–95Google Scholar

Simpson, AWB, ‘The Common Law and Legal Theory’ in Simpson, AWB (ed), Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence (2nd series Clarendon Press, Oxford 1973)Google Scholar

Baker, JH, An Introduction to English Legal History (4th edn Butterworths, London 2002) 197–201Google Scholar

Tubbs, JW, The Common Law Mind: Medieval and Early Modern Conceptions (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 2000) 194Google Scholar

Scheltema, MW, ‘Restitution and Mistaken Payments’ in Schrage, E (ed), Unjust Enrichment and the Law of Contract (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 2001) 87Google Scholar

Wendehorst, C, ‘Die Leistungskondiktion und ihre Binnenstruktur in Rechtsvergleichender Perspektive’ in Zimmermann, R (ed), Grundstrukturen eins Europäischen Bereicherungsrecht (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2005) 35 ffGoogle Scholar

Scheltema, HW, Onverschuldigde Betaling (Kluwer, The Hague 1997) 16 ffGoogle Scholar

Nicholas, B, ‘Modern Developments in the French Law of Unjustified Enrichment’ in Russell, PW (ed), Unjustified Enrichment: A Comparative Study of the Law of Restitution (VU University Press, Amsterdam 1996) 78Google Scholar

Cujacius, J, Opera Omnia (Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1558) Vol 7, col 236 ad C 5.5.9Google Scholar

Winkel, L, ‘Mistake of Law: English and Roman Comparisons’ in Swadling, W (ed), The Limits of Restitutionary Claims: A Comparative Analysis (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London 1997) 252Google Scholar

Duarenus, F, Opera Omnia (Francofurti, 1607) ad C 4.5 and D 12.6Google Scholar

Pothier, R, Condictio Indebiti (in Ouvres) (Brussels/Amsterdam 1806) art 3 [160]Google Scholar

Dawson, JP, Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Analysis (Little Brown & Co, Boston 1951) 92–4Google Scholar

Beatson, J and Schrage, E (eds), Cases, Materials and Texts on Unjustified Enrichment (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2003) 17–18

McCormick, N, Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (Clarendon Press, Oxford 1978) 19Google Scholar

Lasser, M, ‘Judicial (Self-)Portraits: Judicial Discourse in the French Legal System’ (1995) 104 Yale LJ1325, 1351, 1399CrossRef Google Scholar

Harris, D and Tallon, D, Contract Law Today: Anglo-French Comparisons (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1989) 391Google Scholar

David, RJA, ‘The Doctrine of Unjustified Enrichment’ (1935) 5 CLJ222–3Google Scholar