Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

What Right Does Unjust Enrichment Law Protect?

What Right Does Unjust Enrichment Law Protect? This article offers an understanding of the normative basis of unjust enrichment. It begins by considering whether the right at stake in cases of unjust enrichment fits within a Kantian conception of right that treats free agency as the sole aspect of the person commanding respect. It argues that it does not because, in cases of unjust enrichment, recovery does not depend on finding a violation of the plaintiff's bare freedom to choose. The article then argues that unjust enrichment vindicates the plaintiff's right of self-determination—the realization of the capacity to live from self-chosen ends—when the laws of property and contract threaten to undermine it. This resolves the puzzles of unjust enrichment law that remain mysterious on other accounts, such as how the plaintiff can have a right to recovery even though property has been effectively transferred to the defendant, why the plaintiff may recover even though the defendant has been purely passive and has committed no wrong, and why unjust enrichment fails to exhibit the structure of corrective justice. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Oxford University Press

What Right Does Unjust Enrichment Law Protect?

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , Volume 28 (2) – Jan 1, 2008

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/what-right-does-unjust-enrichment-law-protect-jm00p10FBL

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
ISSN
0143-6503
eISSN
1464-3820
DOI
10.1093/ojls/gqn011
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article offers an understanding of the normative basis of unjust enrichment. It begins by considering whether the right at stake in cases of unjust enrichment fits within a Kantian conception of right that treats free agency as the sole aspect of the person commanding respect. It argues that it does not because, in cases of unjust enrichment, recovery does not depend on finding a violation of the plaintiff's bare freedom to choose. The article then argues that unjust enrichment vindicates the plaintiff's right of self-determination—the realization of the capacity to live from self-chosen ends—when the laws of property and contract threaten to undermine it. This resolves the puzzles of unjust enrichment law that remain mysterious on other accounts, such as how the plaintiff can have a right to recovery even though property has been effectively transferred to the defendant, why the plaintiff may recover even though the defendant has been purely passive and has committed no wrong, and why unjust enrichment fails to exhibit the structure of corrective justice.

Journal

Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesOxford University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.