Search

Skip to main content Accessibility help

Home
Search

Only show content I have access to (0)

Articles (1)

Over 3 years (1)

From year:

To year:

Apply

Law (1)

quasi-contracts

The Cambridge Law Journal (1)

View selected items
Save to my bookmarks
Export citations
Download PDF (zip)
Save to Kindle
Save to Dropbox
Save to Google Drive
Save content to
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .

To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
You are about to save
Your Kindle email address

Please provide your Kindle email.

@free.kindle.com @kindle.com (service fees apply)

By using this service, you agree that you will only keep content for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services

1 results

ANOTHER CIVILIAN VIEW OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT'S STRUCTURAL DEBATE
Pablo Letelier
Journal:

The Cambridge Law Journal / Volume 79 / Issue 3 / November 2020

Published online by Cambridge University Press:

07 December 2020, pp. 527-548

Print publication:

November 2020
- Article
- - Get access
    
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    
    Log in Register
- Export citation
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.