Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:42:23.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unjustified Enrichment: Recent Dutch developments from a comparative and historical perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Eltjo J. H. Schrage
Get access

Extract

A Royal Decree of 25 April 1947 entrusted the internationally well known Professor E.M. Meijers with the task of drafting a new civil code.2 Meijers started by submitting some 50 questions to the Dutch Parliament, 18 of which went right to the heart of the issue of how to deal with unjust enrichment:

‘Should a general provision be incorporated to the effect that a person who without sufficient legal ground is enriched at the expense of another must compensate the other for his loss to the maximum of his enrichment, or should the code be limited to the enumeration of a number of specific instances in which this action can be brought?’

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , May 1999 , pp. 57 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1999

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

2. Hartkamp, A.S., Asser-Hartkamp III: Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht, Verbintenissenrecht, Deel III, De verbintenis uit de wet [Manual to the Study of the Dutch Private Law, Part 111, The Obligation Arising from the Law Itself], 9th edn. (Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink 1994)Google Scholar; Birks, P., An Introduction to the Law of Restitution (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1985, repr. 1993);Google Scholar Lord Goff of Chieveley and Jones, G., The Law of Restitution, 4th edn. (London, Sweet and Maxwell 1993);Google ScholarRussell, P.W.L., ed., Unjustified Enrichment, A Comparative Study of the Law of Restitution (Amsterdam, VU University Press 1996); M.W. Scheltema, Onverschuldigde betaling [Undue Payment] (Deventer, Kluwer 1997);Google ScholarZweigert, K. and Kotz, H., An Introduction to Comparative Law, translated by Weir, T. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1992).Google Scholar

3. Some suggestions for further reading: E.J.H. Schrage, ‘The New Dutch Civil Code and Roman Dutch Law’, in 57 Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg (1994) pp. 121–131; A.S. Hartkamp, ‘International Unification and National Codification and Recodification of Civil Law: the Dutch Experience’, in A. Harmathy and Á. Németh, eds., Questions of Civil Law Codification (Budapest, Institute for Legal and Administrative Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 1990) p. 67; A.S. Hartkamp, ‘Civil Code Revision in the Netherlands 1947–1992’, Journal of the Japan-Netherlands Institute: New Netherlands Civil Code; Judicial Discretion Under the New Civil Code of the Netherlands; The first years of Interpretation - Experiences and Perspectives; The Development of Dutch Private Law in a European Perspective (1992) pp. 23–41; also in Proceedings of the Symposium: Dutch and Japanese Laws Compared (University of Tokyo 1993) pp. 7–30; A.S. Hartkamp, ‘The UNIDROIT Principles for International Commercial Contracts and the New Netherlands Civil Code’, in T. Hartlief, et al., eds., CJHB: Brunner-bundel: Opstellen, op 15 april 1994 aangeboden aan prof. mr. C.J.H. Brunner ter gelegenheid van zijn vijfenzestigste verjaardag [Festschrift Brunner] (Deventer, Kluwer 1994) pp. 127–137.

4. NJ 1959,548 (Quint v. te Poel).

5. J.C. van Oven, ‘Verbintenis uit baattrekking’ [The Obligation Arising from Benefits], WPNR (Weekblad voor Privaatrecht, Notariaat en Registratie) 4673 (1961) p. 178.

6. E. von Caemmerer, ‘Bereicherung und unerlaubte Handlung’, in H. Dölle, et al., eds., Festschrift für Ernst Rabel, Vol. I (Tübingen, Mohr 1954) pp. 333–401.

7. These cases could be found in M.H. Bregstein, ‘Ongegronde vermogensvermeerdering’ [Unjust Enrichment], WPNR 4043–4046 (1948) p. 240; also published in M.H. Bregstein, Verzameld Werk [Collected Works], Vol. 1 (Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink 1960) pp. 265 et seq.

8. HR 2 February 1906, Weekblad van het Regt 8335 (1906).

9. County of Carleton v. City of Ottawa [1963] 39 DLR (2d) 11; cf., Weldon v. Canadian Surety Co. [1966] DLR (2d) 735; Goff and Jones, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 23, 177.

10. The action for management of another person's affairs (actio negotiorum gestorum), the action which in Roman times could be brought against the pater familias, who had taken profit of the legitimate acts of his son (actio de in rem verso), the action that could be brought by the minor to annihilate the acts he had performed without the supervision of his tutor (restitutio in integrum) and eventually the condictiones.

11. At the end of para. 111, 14.

12. HR 30 January 1959, NJ 1959, 548; Quint v. te Poel.

13. B. Nicholas, ‘Unjust Enrichment in the Civil Law and Louisiana Law’, 36 Tulane Law Review (1962) pp. 605–646, cont. in 37 Tulane Law Review (1963) pp. 49–66.

14. NJ 1977, 606

15. Court of Appeal of The Hague 10 January 1986, NJ 1987, 162.

16. HR 18 February 1927, NJ 1927, 574. In the same sense HR 29 May 1981, NJ 1982, 191.

17. Barclays Bank Ltd. v. W.J. Simms (Southern) Ltd. [1980] QB 677.

18. Goff and Jones, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 110–111, 114–115.

19. Court of Appeal Amsterdam 24 October 1956, NJ 1957, 368.

20. Edward v. Lee's Administrator, 96 South Western Reporter (2d) 1028 (1936).

21. Req. 11 December 1928, D.H. 1929.18.

22. 1966 (3) SA 96 (A); W. de Vos, Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg [Restitution in South African Law] (Cape Town, Juta en Kie 1987) pp. 311 et seq.

23. C.H.M. Jansen, Onrechtmatige daad: algemene bepalingen [The Law of Torts: General Provisions] (Deventer, Kluwer 1996) p. 25.

24. Trib, paix Vannes 26 July 1927, D.H. 1927.535; cf., Civ. 15 January 1866, D. 1866.1.75.

25. HR 29 January 1993, NJ 1994, 172. Discussed by H.C.F. Schoordijk, in WPNR 6247 (1996) pp. 861–866.

26. Westdijk v. Katwijk, HR 18 April 1969, NJ 1969, 336.

27. William Lacey (Hounslow) v. Davis [1957] 1 WLR 932; see Goff and Jones, op cit. n. 2, ch. 25 on ‘Anticipated contracts which do not materialise’.

28. Regalian Properties plc. v. London Docklands Development Corporation Ltd. [1995] 1 WLR 212.

29. British Steel Corporation v. Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Co. Ltd. [1984] All ER 504.

30. Atiyah, P.S., An Introduction to the Law of Contract (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1995) p. 69.Google Scholar

31. (1871) 10 M 142, 152.

32. Art. 5:14 and 15 BW; W.H.M. Reehuis and E.E. Slob, eds., Parlementaire Geschiedenis van het Nieuwe Burgerlijk Wetboek. Invoering Boeken 3, 5 en 6. Boek 5, Zakelijke Rechten [Parliamentary History of the Implementation Act of the New Dutch Civil Code] (Deventer, Kluwer 1990) p. 1021.

33. HR 17 September 1993, NJ 1993, 740.

34. HR 11 April 1986, NJ 1986, 622.

35. HR 17 March 1954, BNB 1954, 126.

36. HR 30 January 1991, NJ 1992, 191.

37. HR 12 June 1987, NJ 1988, 150.

38. (1856) 25 LJ Ex 329, 332.

39. HR 30 June 1995, NJ 1995,707.

40. HR 17 February 1995, NJ 1996, 471.

41. (1905) 10 Com. Cas. 89. See the discussion in Goff and Jones, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 612, 617–618.

42. HR 5 April 1991, NJ 1992, 244.

43. (1959) 102 CLR 108, 146.

44. Von Caemmerer, op. cit. n. 6, pp. 333–401, reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 1 (Tübingen, Mohr 1968) pp. 209–279.

45. Cass.Req. 6 November 1838, S. 1839.1.160.

46. Req. 22 June 1927, S. 1927.1.338.

47. Cf., Goff and Jones, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 56–57.

48. Soc. 18 March 1954, JCP 1954.11.8168.

49. Court of Appeal of's-Hertogenbosch 4 December 1995, NJ 1996,575.

50. Two remarks can be made: the regulation concerning statutory interest for overdue payments makes the recovery of interest depend on special notices. This is a lex specialis which cannot be set aside by invoking the general law of unjustified enrichment. Furthermore, a money lending institution has the opportunity to stipulate a special clause in the contract concerning this situation. Consequently, neither the statutory nor the contractual provisions leave the door open to a claim for unjustified enrichment concerning this interest.

51. Art. 2042 Codice civile (Carattere sussidiario dell'azione): l'Azione di arrichimento non è proponibile quando il danneggiato può esercitare un ‘altra azione per farsi indennizarre del pregiudizio subito.

52. HR 18 April 1969, NJ 1969, 336.

53. [1995] 1 WLR 212.

54. Req. 15 June 1892, D. 1892.1.596,S. 1893.1.281.

55. B. Nicholas, ‘Unjust Enrichment and Subsidiarity', in S. Passarelli and F. Lupoi, eds., Scintillae Iuris. Studi in Memoria di Gino Gorla, Vol. 111 (Milan, A. Giuftrè 1994) pp. 2037–2045.

56. Birks, op. cit. n. 2, p. 46.

57. Pan Ocean Shipping Ltd. v. Creditcorp Ltd. [1994] 1 All ER 470, at p. 473 j.

58. Cour de Cassation 12 March 1914, S. 1918/1919.1.41. M.H. Bregstein, ‘Het nieuwe B.W. Ongegronde verrijking’ [The New Civil Code. Unjustified Enrichment], in WPNR 4300 (1953); also published in his Verzameld Werk [Collected Works], Vol. 1 (Zwolle, Tjeenk Willink 1960) pp. 299–311 at p. 306.

59. Cour de Cassation 2 March 1915, D. 20.1.102.

60. HR 24 February 1938, NJ 1938, 952. Cf., H.C.F. Schoordijk, ‘Aan een actie uit ongegronde verrijking dienen wij in geval van een contract niet toe te komen’ [A Claim for Restitution Based on Unjust Enrichment Should not Be Brought in Case of a Contract], WPNR 5356 (1976) pp. 455–463.

61. Civ. 1 February 1984, D. 1984.388. Mestre, 83 Rev.trim.dr.civ. (1984) p. 712; B. Nicholas, ‘Modern Developments in the French law of Unjustified Enrichment’, in Russell, op. cit. n. 2, pp. 77–95 at p. 88.

62. Dickson remarks that the claim being made was not a subsidiary one at all but rather a main one against a defendant who was liable to the plaintiff quite independently of whether anyone was liable too. Dickson, B., ‘Contract and Restitution: a Few Comparative Remarks - A Comment’, in Rose, F., ed., Failure of Contracts. Contractual Restitutionary and Proprietary Consequences (Oxford, Hart Pub 1997) pp. 243–246.Google Scholar

63. Van der Tuuk Adriani v. Batelaan, HR 15 March 1996, NJ 1997, 3, discussed by H.C.F. Schoordijk, in 13 NTBR (1996) pp. 247–253, and by H J. Simons, R.J.N. Schlössels, in Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht 1966, 120. See further E. Schrage, ‘Contract and Restitution: A Few Comparative Remarks’, in Rose, op. cit. n. 62, pp. 231–242.

64. Chesworth v. Farrer [1983] 1 AC 366, Goff and Jones, op. cit. n. 2, p. 728.

65. Beginning with Civ. 18/19 July 1910, DP 1911.1.355. See Nicholas, op. cit. n. 55, at fn. 89.

66. Civ. 29 April 1971, Gaz.Pal. 1971.2.554; Nicholas, op. cit. n. 55, at fn. 43–44.

67. Art. 361 et seq. in Book 8 of the Dutch Civil Code. See also Asser-Hartkamp III, op. cit n. 2, p. 10.

68. W.H.M. Reehuis and E.E. Slob, eds., Parlementaire Geschiedenis van het Nieuwe Burgerlijk Wetboek. Invoering Boeken 3, 5 en 6. Boek 6, Algemeen Gedeelte van het Verbintenissenrecht [Parliamentary History of the Implementation Act of the New Dutch Civil Code] (Deventer, Kluwer 1990)p. 1371.

69. This recourse to the legislator finds a striking parallel where Goff and Jones discuss if the actions in tort and in restitution do not terminate at the same time. They refer to statutory provisions like the Limitation Act 1980, but realise that the statute may not govern restitutionary claims.

70. [1957] 1 WLR 932. Supra n. 27.

71. HR 27 June 1997, RvdW 1997,147C.

72. Civ. 7 July 1987; voir Mestre, 87 Rev.trim.dr.civ.. (1988) p. 132; see also in the same sense the decision of the District Court of Pau 19 April 1983, Juris Data n. 42112, note G. Bonet, Jurisclasseur Civil, App. Art. 1370–1371.

73. The reasoning is already known since the Middle Ages. The action for management of another's affairs (actio negotiorum gestorum) could not be brought by the mala fide possessor who had built on another's property and was then evicted. He acted knowingly and willingly, fully aware of the consequences of his acts in property. There was even a current under the Glossators, who found that these acts were to be identified with a donation.

74. Req. 22 February 1939, D. 1940.1.5; Gaz.Pal. 1939.1.779. See Nicholas, op. cit. n. 55, p. 85, with further literature, e.g., H. Périnet-Marquet, ‘Le sort de l'action de in rem verso en cas de faute de l'appauvri’, 60 Juris-Classeur Periodique (1982) p. 3075; A.-M. Romani, ‘La faute de l'appauvri dans l'enrichissement sans cause dans la répétition de l'indu’, 18 Dalloz (1983) chron. 127; P. Conte, ‘Faute de l'appauvri et cause de l'appauvrissement’, 86 Rev.trim dr.civ. (1987) p. 223.

75. Court of Appeal of Arnhem 5 March 1991, NJ 1992, 37; Court of Appeal of Arnhem 4 February 1992, NJ 1993,789.

76. In other countries this may be different. In France, public authorities are, in principle, not subject to private law but to administrative law. In the United Kingdom, this type of problem is governed by statutory law.

77. Speaking of the history of the action for money had and received: Holt v. Markham [1923] 1 KB (504, 513).

78. Quoted by Markesinis, B.S., The Gradual Convergence: Foreign Ideas, Foreign Influences and English Law on the Eve of the 21st Century (London, Clarendon Press 1994) pp. 263–264.Google Scholar

79. I am greatly indebted to J. Beatson, the Rouse Ball Professor of English Law and to G. Jones, Q.C., LL.D., F.B.A., the Downing Professor of the Laws of England for their valuable remarks and stimulating discussions. I also thank the Master and Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge for their generous hospitality.