No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
ANOTHER CIVILIAN VIEW OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT'S STRUCTURAL DEBATE
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2020
Abstract
This article seeks to illustrate the kinds of difficulties that may follow from renouncing a unified approach to restitutionary claims for unjust enrichment. To do so, it draws on the experience of the French legal system, where the notion of unjustified enrichment describes a maxim inspiring various doctrines which have evolved in relative isolation from each other. Relying on this experience, the article argues that the objections recently raised by Nils Jansen against the German law of unjustified enrichment should not lead English lawyers to downplay the value of a unified approach to the subject.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2020
Footnotes
*
University of Edinburgh. I would like to thank David Fox, Hector MacQueen, Charles Mitchell and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this article.
References
1 Zimmermann, R., “Unjustified Enrichment: The Modern Civilian Approach” (1995) 15 O.J.L.S. 403Google Scholar.
2 Dawson, J., Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Analysis (Boston 1951), 91–92Google Scholar; Nicholas, B., “Unjustified Enrichment in the Civil Law and Louisiana Law” (1961) 36 Tul.L.Rev. 605, 610Google Scholar; Plessis, J. Du, “Towards a Rational Structure of Liability for Unjustified Enrichment: Thoughts from Two Mixed Jurisdictions” (2005) 122 S.A.L.J. 142, 155Google Scholar.
3 E. Descheemaeker, “The French Law of Unjustified Enrichment” (2017) 25 R.L.R. 77, 96.
4 D. Visser, “Unjustified Enrichment in Comparative Perspective” in M. Reimann and R. Zimmermann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2019), 962–63.
5 N. Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” (2016) 20 Edin.L.R. 123.
6 A. Burrows, “In Defence of Unjust Enrichment” (2019) 78(3) C.L.J. 521, 522.
7 R. Stevens, “The Unjust Enrichment Disaster” (2018) 134 L.Q.R. 574, 601.
8 S. Hedley, “‘Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?’ A Common Law Response” (2016) 20 Edin.L.R. 326.
9 Jansen, “Farewell”, 125–30.
10 E. Schrage and B. Nicholas, “Unjust Enrichment and the Law of Restitution: A Comparison” in E. Schrage (ed.), Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution (Berlin 1995), 21–22.
11 J.M. Augustin, “Introduction Historique à l'Enrichissement sans Cause en Droit Français” in V. Mannino and C. Ophèle (eds.), L'Enrichissement sans Cause – La Classification des Sources des Obligations (Paris 2007), 33.
12 F. Goré, L'Enrichissement aux Dépens d'Autrui (Paris 1949), 23–24; C. Filios, L'Enrichissement sans Cause en Droit Privé Français: Analyse Interne et Vues Comparatives (Brussels 1999), 42–43; N. Davrados, “Demystifying Enrichment without Cause” (2018) 78 La.L.Rev. 1123, 1234.
13 P. Roubier, “La Position Française en Matière d'Enrichissement sans Cause” in L'Enrichissement sans Cause – La Représentation dans les Actes Juridiques: Travaux de l'Association Henri Capitant, vol. IV: Journées Néerlandaises (Paris 1949), 42; Dawson, Unjust Enrichment, 95–96; J.M. Augustin, “Les Classifications des Sources des Obligations de Domat au Code Civil” in Mannino and Ophèle, L'Enrichissement sans Cause, 126–27.
14 Schrage and Nicholas, “Unjust Enrichment”, 22.
15 R. Feenstra, “Grotius: Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment as a Source of Obligation: Its Origin and Its Influence in Roman-Dutch Law” in Schrage, Unjust Enrichment, 236.
16 Jansen, “Farewell”, 136.
17 Zimmermann, “Unjustified Enrichment”, 409.
18 A. Sériaux, Manuel de Droit des Obligations, 3rd ed. (Paris 2018), 213.
19 French authors often emphasise that the historical origin of the theory of nullity should be traced not to the Roman condictiones, but to the doctrine of restitutio in integrum. See e.g. Goré, L'Enrichissement aux Dépens, 24.
20 Descheemaeker, “The French Law”, 80–81.
21 J. Carbonnier, Droit Civil, Volume II (Paris 2004). This conclusion is not unanimously endorsed. See P. Malaurie, L. Aynès and P. Stoffel-Munck, Droit des Obligations, 10th ed. (Paris 2018), 607–08; Sériaux, Obligations, 214.
22 See e.g. Civ. 1re, 24 sept. 2002, D. 2003. 369, note J.L. Aubert.
23 An English version of the new provisions by John Cartwright, Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson and Simon Whittaker is included as an appendix in J. Cartwright and S. Whittaker (eds.), The Code Napoléon Rewritten: French Contract Law after the 2016 Reforms (Oxford 2017), 410.
24 I. Defrenois-Souleau, “La Répétition de l'Indu Objectif” (1989) 88 R.T.D.Civ. 243. See also B. Starck, H. Roland and L. Boyer, Droit Civil: Les Obligations. 2. Contrat, 6th ed. (Paris 1998), at [2126].
25 Some of the reasons justifying these singularities are spelt out in P. Rémy, “Des Autres Sources d'Obligations” in F. Terré (ed.), Pour une Réforme du Régime Général des Obligations (Paris 2013), 36–37.
26 See e.g. Malaurie et al., Droit des Obligations, 613–14; F. Terré, P. Simler, Y. Lequette and F. Chénedé, Droit Civil: Les Obligations, 12th ed. (Paris 2018), 1111–14; A. Bénabent, Droit des Obligations, 17th ed. (Paris 2018), 375–77.
27 Interestingly, these provisions do not apply to the measure of recovery in a general unjustified enrichment claim. O. Deshayes, T. Genicon and Y.M. Laithier, Réforme du Droit des Contrats, du Régime Général et de la Preuve des Obligations: Commentaire Article par Article, 2nd ed. (Paris 2018), 919; G. Chantepie and M. Latina, La Réforme du Droit des Obligations: Commentaire Théorique et Pratique dans l'Ordre du Code Civil, 2nd ed. (Paris 2018), 944–45.
28 Under the new provisions, the claimant does not need to show an error where there is no debt justifying the payment (indu objectif), nor where despite existing a debt, the claimant pays the wrong person (indu subjectif actif). The only cases where an error must be demonstrated is those where the claimant pays a person who, despite not being his or her creditor, was owed the debt by another person (indu subjectif pasif). For commentary, see Terré et al., Droit Civil, at [1292].
29 For accounts describing the French model as “fragmentary”, see Filios, L'Enrichissement sans Cause, 47; Du Plessis, “Towards a Rational Structure”, 155.
30 Where there is no valid payment order, Z's transfer to Y cannot be properly construed as a performance from X to Y. Until recently, it was widely accepted that if Y receives the payment without knowing of X's countermand, the restitutionary claim should be brought by X, because Y should not be made responsible for a misunderstanding taking place between X and Z. It should be noted, however, that in 2015 the German Federal Court departed from this position and concluded that a bank paying without a valid mandate should always be afforded a direct claim against the recipient, even if the latter was not aware of a countermand. On the difficulties posed by this kind of situations, sometimes referred to as “order situations”, see S. Meier, “Mistaken Payments in Three-party Situations: A German View of English Law” (1999) 58 C.L.J. 567.
31 Jansen, “Farewell”, 140.
32 P. Puig, Contrats Spéciaux, 7th ed. (Paris 2017), 730–31; H. Kenfack and S. Ringler, Droit des Contrats Spéciaux (Paris 2017), 231.
33 See Cass. 3 civ., 15 déc. 2004, GDP 2005, IV, 2732, note J.J. Barbièri.
34 See Cass. Ass. Plén., 13 déc. 1962, GDP 1963, I, 283, D. 63. 277, note J. Calais-Auloy; G. Cornu, “Mandat” (1963) R.T.D.Civ. 572.
35 Req. 15 juin 1892, GAJC, t. 2, 12 éd., no 239; DP 1892. 1. 596; s. 1893. 1. 281, note J.E. Labbé.
36 Filios, L'Enrichissement sans Cause, 81. On the link between mandat and gestion d'affaires in French law, see Rémy, “Des Autres Sources d'Obligations”, 33.
37 J. Flour, J.L. Aubert and E. Savaux, Les Obligations, vol. II: Le Fait Juridique, 14th ed. (Paris 2011), 41.
38 The translation is from Nicholas, “Unjustified Enrichment”, 622. Roman law recognised an actio de in rem verso, but this action was not intended to be applied as a general remedy against unjustified enrichment. R. Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford 1996), 878–79.
39 Descheemaeker, “The French Law”, 93. Similar difficulties affect many other of the rules governing critical aspects of the actio de in rem verso, including the test to define the required link between claimant and defendant and the effect of the claimant's fault in the measure of recovery.
40 E. von Caemmerer, “Problèmes Fondamentaux de l'Enrichissement sans Cause” (1966) 18 R.I.D.C. 573, 588; R. Zimmermann and J. du Plessis, “Basic Features of the German Law of Unjustified Enrichment” (1994) 2 R.L.R. 14, 18; Meier, “Mistaken Payments”, 598.
41 R. Zimmermann, “Restitutio in Integrum” (2005) 10 Unif.L.Rev. 719, 721; S. Meier, “Unwinding Failed Contracts: New European Developments” (2017) 21 Edin.L.R. 1, 11.
42 Jansen, “Farewell”, 142.
43 Terré et al., Droit Civil, at [576]–[578].
44 See e.g. Civ. 3e, 29 janv. 2003, JCP 2003, II, 10116, note Y.M. Serinet; J. Mestre and B. Fages, “Effets de la Résolution” (2003) R.T.D.Civ. 501.
45 Bénabent, Droit des Obligations, at [230]; Malaurie et al., Droit des Obligations, at [723].
46 Terré et al., Droit Civil, 652, 1890–91.
47 T. Genicon, La Résolution du Contrat pour Inexécution (Paris 2007), at [814].
48 Terré et al., Droit Civil, 123–25, 883–85. See further S. Rowan, “Termination for Contractual Non-performance” in Cartwright and Whittaker, The Code Napoléon Rewritten, 325.
49 Meier, “Unwinding Failed Contracts”, 12.
50 Zimmermann, “Restitutio in Integrum”, 727–28.
51 Terré et al., Droit Civil, at [1811].
52 E. Descheemaeker, “Quasi-contrats et Enrichissement Injustifié en Droit Français” (2013) R.T.D.Civ. 1.
53 H. Vizioz, La Notion de Quasi-contrat, Étude Historique et Critique (Bordeaux 1912), 314; F. Zenati-Castaing and T. Revet, Cours de Droit Civil: Contrats, Théorie Générale – Quasi-contrats, (Paris 2014), at [225].
54 But see M. Douchy, La Notion de Quasi-contrat en Droit Positif Francais (Paris 1997), offering an influential reinterpretation of the notion of quasi-contracts.
55 Cass., ch. mixte, 6 sept. 2002, no 98-22.981, Bull. ch. mixte no 4; D. 2002. 2963, note D. Mazeaud.
56 Terré et al., Droit Civil, 1335.
57 This solution was proposed in P. Catala, Avant-projet de Réforme du Droit des Obligations et de la Prescription (Paris 2005), 75.
58 C. Toullier, Droit Civil Français, vol. XI, 4th ed. (Paris 1824), at [16].
59 Rémy, “Des Autres Sources d'Obligations”, 34.
60 P. Le Tourneau, “Quasi-contrat” in Encyclopédie Juridique Dalloz: Répertoire de Droit Civil (Paris 2018), at [52].
61 P. Birks, “Definition and Division: A Meditation on Institutes 3.13” in P. Birks (ed.), The Classification of Obligations (Oxford 1997), 18.
62 E. Terrier, “La Fiction au Secours des Quasi-contrats ou l'Achèvement d'un Débat Juridique” (2004) 17 Recueil Dalloz 1179.
63 R. Libchaber, “Le Malheur des Quasi-contrats” (2016), Droit & Patrimoine, 73. This kind of reasoning can be also found in J. Honorat, “Rôle Effectif et Rôle Concevable des Quasi-contrats en Droit Actuel” (1969) R.T.D.Civ. 653.
64 Jansen, “Farewell”, 144–45, 147.
65 B. Starck, H. Roland and L. Boyer, Introduction au Droit, 5th ed. (Paris 2000), 103; J. Ghestin, “Les Données Positives du Droit” (2002) R.T.D.Civ. 11.
66 C. Jamin and P. Jestaz, La Doctrine (Paris 2004), 230; S. Pimont, “A Propos de l'Activité Doctrinal Civiliste” (2006) 4 R.T.D.Civ. 707.
67 G. Cornu, Droit Civil: Introduction au Droit, 13th ed. (Paris 2007), 104. This understanding of the notion of “legal category” is sometimes described as a distinctive feature of legal reasoning in the civilian tradition. See e.g. G. Samuel, The Law of Obligations (Cheltenham 2010), 2–3.
68 E. Descheemaeker, The Division of Wrongs: A Historical Comparative Study (Oxford 2009), 113, 122–23.
69 For an overview, see Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations, 783.
70 S. Grundmann and M.S. Schäfer, “The French and the German Reforms of Contract Law” (2017) 13 E.R.C.L. 459.
71 R. Zimmermann, “Comparative Law and the Europeanization of Private Law” in Reimann and Zimmermann, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, 2nd ed., 554.
72 Visser, “Unjustified Enrichment”, 962.
73 Jansen, “Farewell”, 125.
74 The modern law of contract provides a further illustration of this point. As noted by Professor MacQueen, “underneath and indeed preceding it lay a law of particular contracts, for each of which the substance of the generalisation was not infrequently inapplicable at least in part”. H. MacQueen, “The Sophistication of Unjustified Enrichment: A Response to Nils Jansen” (2016) 20 Edin.L.R. 312, 324.
75 S. Pimont, “Peut-on Réduire le Droit en Théories Générales?” (2009) 3 R.T.D.Civ. 417.
76 Jansen, “Farewell”, 124, 148.
77 G. Ripert, La Règle Morale dans les Obligations Civiles, 4th ed. (Paris 1949), 246.
78 Von Caemmerer, “Problèmes fondamentaux”, 591.
79 Jansen, “Farewell”,135.
80 Olmo, P. Del and Basozabal, X., “Unjustified Enrichment in Spanish Law” (2017) 25 R.L.R. 104Google Scholar.
81 Diez-Picazo, L., “La Doctrina del Enriquecimiento Injustificado” in Diez-Picazo, L. and De la Cámara, M., Dos Estudios sobre el Enriquecimiento sin Causa (Madrid 1988), 100Google Scholar.
82 C. Vendrell Cervantes, “La Acción de Enriquecimiento Injustificado por Intromisión en los Derechos al Honor, a la Intimidad y a la Propia Imagen” (2012) LXV Anuario de Derecho Civil 1107.
83 A similar point is made on the basis of the South African experience in MacQueen, “The Sophistication”, 321–22.
84 Jansen, “Farewell”, 144, 147.
85 Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations, 854.
86 Bénabent, Droit des Obligations, at [461].
87 M. Douchy-Oudot, “Répétition de l'Indu” in Encyclopédie Juridique Dalloz, at [109].
88 Carbonnier, Droit Civil, at [1229]; Descheemaeker, “Quasi-contrats”, 20.
89 Terré et al., Droit Civil, at [181]; Deshayes et al., Réforme du Droit des Contrats, 928–30, 933–34.
90 Jansen, “Farewell”, 143.
91 Descheemaeker, “Quasi-contrats”, 22–23; Descheemaeker, “The French Law”, 97–103.
92 Bell, J., “Legal Research and the Distinctiveness of Comparative Law” in Van Hoecke, M. (ed.), Methodologies of Legal Research (Oxford 2011), 175–76Google Scholar.