Overview of Unjust Enrichment
The creation of unjust enrichment can be categorized into three elements that are inclusive of: A defendant can be enriched as they might be receiving some sort of benefit. The enrichment might be at the expense of the plaintiff. The enrichment that takes place in situations are considered to make it unjust for the defendant as such retains the enrichment. Therefore, a classic illustration of unjust enrichment is supposed to be through the transfer of money as it is made by a mistake in the wrong bank account number. This mistake is supposed to destroy the consent of the plaintiff for the transfer as the result would be based on the money that is to be returned to the plaintiff. However, in spite of such, the defendant is considered to have a good legal title to the money as the law is considered to impose the obligation in order to restore the money to the plaintiff as the defendant had not committed any wrong due to the agreement existing between the parties. Thus, it can be stated that the law of unjust enrichment is supposed to seek collection with a little bit of understanding of the circumstances and the cases as the law imposes certain level of obligation on the recipient for returning the benefit that has been received.
The paper elaborates on the concept of unjust enrichment and deals with the enrichments of the defendant as well as the disenrichments of the plaintiff. It also enumerates on the fact that the responsibility or the liability is supposed to take place when the defendant has been enriched as such implies the will of the defendant from what he or she has gained. In addition to this, the paper also elaborates on how the law adopts a mixture of objective and subjective perspective through distinct approaches. It does so, with the reference to case laws by explaining the positions. Therefore, the primary objective of the paper is to understand the fact whether the law could be improved in this regard. In conclusion, it summarizes the deliberations made in the paper.
In order to understand the present position of New Zealand on unjust enrichment the historical development of such in England needs to be comprehended. The personal restitution remedies were supposed to be developed through the three primary forms where money had been received and the principle situations were supposed to give rise to the claims for money as such had been received through the money that had been paid by a mistake as the money paid resulted in compulsion or duress or any other situations where there had been a failure of basis or consideration. In addition to this, the Quantum meruit was also supposed to be used in order to recover the remuneration for services as such were performed by the plaintiff for the defendant. The Quantum valebat on the other hand, was considered to seek to recover certain value of goods as these were supplied through the plaintiff for the defendant. Therefore, these remedies were considered to create a general claim of indebitatus assumsit which was supposed to be a promise to pay. However, throughout the times the courts were supposed to allow the general claim without any kind of express promise instead of allowing the claims to be based on the fictional promise that implied the defendant’s conduct.
Responsibilities and Liabilities of Plaintiff and Defendant
The role of unjust enrichment is considered to create a basis for legal taxonomy as such is useful for a starting point. The framework is supposed to analyze the proper role as there are certain benefits of rigid taxonomy and these are considered to ensure that the cases are treated alike through the highlighting of the inconsistencies in the law as these would be used for monitoring the development and progress of law which offered a certain level of clarity by preventing the duplication. Nevertheless, it has also been understood that the quest to create any definitive taxonomy in common law is considered to be challenging as well as controversial as Birks had drawn certain analogies through the legal and scientific taxonomies. The dominance of the legislation was considered to create certain level of difficulty as such helped in identifying the place within the common law system and this added complication. Therefore, the common law was considered to develop slowly for this particular concept as it formed an essential part of the foundation of the New Zealand’s legal system. Nonetheless, taxonomies were considered to serve as a useful function as it got overlooked and undervalued for making and then reforming the law. Birks’ taxonomy was considered to describe public law and private law where the private law ensured that the individuals who bore rights were supposed to have rights and the actions would be protected through those rights. It can be illustrated through the instance with respect to the case of Roy v Lagona [2010] VSC 250 at [339] (VSC). Additionally, the private law was divided into the law of persons and the rights as these were further divided into property and the law of obligations. However, the New Zealand’s position on unjust enrichment was considered to be found consistent with Birks’ taxonomy as it offered restitutionary remedies in connection with the claims of contract, tort as well as property. It can be enumerated through the instance in connection with the case of Oliver v Lakeside Property Trust Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1040. Therefore, the concept of unjust enrichment was identified through four possible roles that were regarding the classificatory or taxonomic and organizational label such as the contracts or the torts. The extrinsic norm where the concept explained a more normative perspective through the enrichment as it needed to be returned to the plaintiff. Along with such, the legal principle which created the concept with the help of a normative force as well as the legal status because it rationalized the guides of the development through the existing or prevalent legal rules and in addition to this, a legal cause of action as such had its own right.
As per the analysis, it can be understood that, the legal principle of unjust enrichment can be understood through the general articulation of certain normative considerations as such is considered to be lying behind the sets of the legal rules. These are supposed to be both attractive as well as viable as the option of unjust enrichment is supposed to strike a useful compromise through the stability and along with such the development in legal reasoning. The law therefore, can adopt certain objective approaches such as the constructive trusts as well as certain statutory provisions for the restitutionary remedies in New Zealand. The constructive trust is not considered to be usually referenced through the legal principle as it is supposed to be underpinning the equitable remedy. It can be explained through the instance of Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) [2008] HCA 27. Therefore, these are used in order to create results of claim in a relationship property. The statutes on the other hand, is supposed to offer certain restitutionary remedies as these create a scope of identification and recognition for the appropriate remedy. The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) is considered to be implemented and applicable as the sections prohibit one party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of the other. Therefore, money is considered to be paid through a frustrated contract as it needs to be returned and the less value of the reasonable value needs to be acquired. The Property Law Act 2007 is also considered to be applicable as it offers references payments which are supposed to be made under the mistake of law. Section 74A is supposed to permit the recovery of the payments through the mistake of law as it appears to build common law position which would act as a relief that is available for the payments.
History of Unjust Enrichment and Legal Taxonomy
In case of unjust enrichment of a defendant an individual cannot be unjustly enriched as per the case of Portman Building Society as the money was considered to be trust money which belonged in equity as the society was supposed to be properly paid by the firm into the client account. The firm was not considered to make any claim regarding the money and due to such the acknowledgment was regarding the fact that it was the society’s money. Therefore, the instructions were applied through the exchange for a mortgage which was in favor of the society as the firm did not receive any money regarding their usage and benefit. This can also be perceived through the case of Taylor v Laird, [1856] Eng Rep 648 or the case of Taylor v Laird (1856) 25 LJ Ex 329 at 332 where the claim of payment was supposed to be for the cleaning of the property.
The concept of unjust enrichment is considered to be linked with the law of restitutionary remedies as these are not like compensatory remedies. The restitutionary remedies are supposed to concentrate on the gain of the defendants rather than the loss of the plaintiff and due to such, the law of restitution is considered to be seen as an area that restores the wealth of a plaintiff through a legal and legitimate transfer as such is ought to be undone or reversed. It can be established through the instance with regards to the case of Brenner v First Artists’ Management Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 221 at 259, 261 (VSC). An incontrovertible or presumed benefit is supposed create a benefit where no reasonable individual in the position of the defendant would be denying the benefit. Therefore, this particular concept has been identified in a number of Australian as well as English case laws. It can be observed through the instance in connection with the case of Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 31; (2014) 252 CLR 307 (HCA) where it was established that the settlement sum that had been conferred was supposed to be an incontrovertible benefit on the defendants even though the concerns had been raised regarding the benefits being conferred as it was a part of the associated burdens.
However, it had been found that the cases of the incontrovertible benefit could be divided into certain sub-categories where the money could be realized as money by the defendant and along with such it could be legal as well as factual through the perspective of the defendant as it was an easily returnable benefit. It also stated that the non-money benefits created the intention of the defendant to realize that the money was through sale and the non-money benefits were supposed to be realizable in the sense that it would be reasonable through the expectation of the defendant’s intention as there were no apparent or actual intention to do so. Nevertheless, it can be understood that the specific instances could be well accepted as the defendant would be regarding the benefits even without the absence of the request as such was relevant for the asset as well as the service. However, certain other illustrations would be a little contentious. Nevertheless, the case of McDonald v Coys of Kensington (Sales) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 47 offers a little ambiguity regarding the principle as it offers an unclear picture regarding the correct way of describing the concept. However, a definitive test is considered to be rebutted through exceptional cases as it offers certain kind of reference to the objective evidence. Therefore, the concept is supposed to work through the latter as a way of accuracy as it refers to the categories that are presumed rather than having an incontrovertible benefit.
Improving the Law of Unjust Enrichment
There are certain legal tests of benefit where the section is supposed to consisting of certain specific instances which protects the freedom of choice of the defendant as the choice is broken down. The defendant, in normal instances, are supposed to be benefitted normally as per the case of Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5 and the case of Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) (2008) 232 CLR 635 as the High Court demonstrated the requested work as the example of archetypal as this benefitted the defendant as it could be unconscionable for him to retain without any payment. Therefore, the request for always requiring to constitute and establish benefit is considered to be crucial as it exempts the defendant from a burden.
Free Acceptance, on the other hand, is considered to be understood through the Goff and Jones where it had been stated that the defendant was not deemed to be contractually bound as it might have benefitted from the services that had been rendered through the circumstances in which the court held him liable for payment. This case helped in freely accepting the services as it was from the perspective that the held benefit was supposed to be for a reasonable man who had rendered the services through the claimant by expecting payment. The Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50 was considered to be the starting point of the objective market value as the onus of proof remained on the plaintiff. The defendant was supposed to be allowed to deliberate upon the subjective devaluation and the onus of proof on the defendant required evidentiary statements. There was no subjective reevaluation.
The subjective part of the legal principle of unjust enrichment remained in the cause of action as it offered certain restitutionary remedies through the statutory instruments. These were considered to be for the claims of the unjust enrichment for the unsolicited services as these were rendered as unnecessary in common law. However, the statutory instruments were supposed to be the reason for the common law action of unjust enrichment as it created a slow as well as piecemeal development and such was a necessity. Nonetheless, the cause of action was deemed to be criticized a lot as it became one of the fundamental tensions in unjust enrichment as it created a distinction between the sanctity of ownership and security of receipt. Due to such, the respect was given to the property rights for the common law jurisdictions as it was important for the individuals to have freedom to use as well as dispose off the wealth that was supposed to be in their position. However, most of the criticisms were supposed to be addressed through the adoption of a strict formula approach that utilized the factors by permitting certain appropriate defences as these were supposed to be a change of position. Nonetheless, the achievement for the correct balance was supposed to be between the security of the receipt and along with such for the provision of the remedy.
Conclusion
This can be understood as a little difficult and challenging approach for the law to adopt because it was challenging to formulate the cause of action by recognizing the satisfactory boundaries of liability. Nevertheless, Birks’ desire for coherency in law is considered to actually help in enriching and recognizing the unjust enrichment as it was a cause of action that achieved dangerous over-expansiveness. Due to this, it is supposed to be a challenge for the plaintiff as they become powerless in order to prohibit the enrichment of the defendant. The objection is largely based on the strict analysis of the enrichment as it is supposed to be at the expense of the plaintiff as this is considered to create a recognition of the concept that is incidental to the benefits. However, with respect to the equity in early New Zealand cases the suspicious factor of unjust enrichment was considered to be in relation to the permission of a litigant’s claim to justice as these were supposed to be consigned to the void of individual moral opinion. Nonetheless, there were certain strengths to the cause of action as this created a basis for structure as well as clarity in law. This was through the advent of a well-recognized formula for the unjust enrichment claims as the countries did not recognize the unjust enrichment as a cause of action. The confusion regarding the unjust enrichment was supposed to be through the cause of action in New Zealand as such led to similar problems which created strong examples. Thus, providing the structure in the course of action could help in promoting discipline and the law of New Zealand could adopt such aspects for improving the law regarding unjust enrichment as this is supposed to assist in addressing certain criticisms through the concept as its potential is too broad. It can be elucidated from the case of Avondale Printers and Stationers Ltd v Haggie [1979] 2. NZLR 124. However, due to the nature of the supplementary claim the risk of unjust enrichment is considered to create a basis for restitution as it prevents the further scope of exploitation by claiming a remedy that would answer the uncertainty through the underlying claim. Nevertheless, without any significant detail as well as discipline the risk of the liability is not supposed to be confusing as these are created through the inconsistent ways where the serious implications are supposed to be present for coherency as well as predictability of the private law in New Zealand.
Conclusion
Therefore, in conclusion, it can be stated that, in order to recognize or identify the unjust enrichment the law of New Zealand needs to adopt a strict cause of action as it offers a remedy to the plaintiff if they deserve one without upsetting the areas of law that are well-settled. Due to this, the strict cause of action is considered to be difficult to formulate as it by its very nature is supposed to be responding to the situations through the transfer of wealth as it has been objectively created through the legitimacy as the element is supposed to be reversed. However, without any cause of action that is available, the plaintiffs are considered to be deserving of a remedy as such leads to unprincipled developments that create a better aspect for the other areas of law. In order to create a better prospect for the unjust enrichment law New Zealand needs to have more high-profile cases as such are necessary for understanding and assessing the current position. It also needs to create a claim that would offer the legal owner a justified amount in the future as such would create a basis for reform for the New Zealand Courts as they would gather new experiences which would rightfully recognize the principle of unjust enrichment in the long-run.
Agnew, Sinéad. “The meaning and significance of conscience in private law.” The Cambridge Law Journal 77.3 (2018): 479-505.
Avondale Printers and Stationers Ltd v Haggie [1979] 2. NZLR 124.
Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50.
Brenner v First Artists’ Management Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 221 at 259, 261 (VSC).
Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA).
Cooksley, Tessa. “The role of unjust enrichment in New Zealand.” Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper, Student/Alumni Paper 21 (2019).
Gordley, James. “Unjust enrichment: a comparative perspective and a critique.” Research Handbook on Unjust Enrichment and Restitution. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020.
Klimchuk, Dennis. “Unjust enrichment and the forms of justice.” Research Handbook on Unjust Enrichment and Restitution. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020.
Lin, Wei. “Reappealing the Case of Unjust Enrichment and Its Dilemma and Resolution.” Third International Conference on Social Science, Public Health and Education (SSPHE 2019). Atlantis Press, 2020.
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) (2008) 232 CLR 635.
Lumbers v W Cook Builders Pty Ltd (in liq) [2008] HCA 27.
McDonald v Coys of Kensington (Sales) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 47.
Oliver v Lakeside Property Trust Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 1040.
Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul [1987] HCA 5.
Property Law Act 2007.
Purshouse, Craig, and Kate Bracegirdle. “The Problem of Unenforceable Surrogacy Contracts: Can Unjust Enrichment Provide a Solution?.” Medical Law Review 26.4 (2018): 557-584.
Roy v Lagona [2010] VSC 250 at [339] (VSC).
Sebok, Anthony J. “Corrective justice, unjust enrichment, and restitution.” Research Handbook on Private Law Theory. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020.
Smith, Lionel D. “The province of the law of restitution.” Restitution. Routledge, 2020. 55-82.
Smith, Lionel, and Samuel Beswick. “Unjust Enrichment: Principle or Cause of Action?.” (2021): 1-1.
Smith, Lionel. “Unjust Enrichment.” McGill Law Journal/Revue de droit de McGill 66.1 (2020): 165-168.
Stevens, Robert. “The Unjust Enrichment Disaster.” LQR 134 (2018): 574.
Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 31; (2014) 252 CLR 307 (HCA).
Taylor v Laird (1856) 25 LJ Ex 329 at 332.
Taylor v Laird, [1856] Eng Rep 648.
Weinrib, Ernest J. “The corrective justice of liability for unjust enrichment.” Research Handbook on Unjust Enrichment and Restitution. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
