不当得利与契约

Peter Jaffey
{"title":"不当得利与契约","authors":"Peter Jaffey","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Benedetti v Sawiris was concerned with the measure of a quantum meruit, and in particular whether a ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ measure should be preferred. The Supreme Court addressed the issue broadly in line with the approach in the mainstream academic literature on unjust enrichment, according to which this is a problem of how to measure benefit. The article argues that this unjust enrichment approach is misguided because it obscures the role of agreement and conflates transfer and exchange, and that a contractual analysis of the case would make the issues clearer and easier to resolve.","PeriodicalId":344388,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","volume":"361 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unjust Enrichment and Contract\",\"authors\":\"Peter Jaffey\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Benedetti v Sawiris was concerned with the measure of a quantum meruit, and in particular whether a ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ measure should be preferred. The Supreme Court addressed the issue broadly in line with the approach in the mainstream academic literature on unjust enrichment, according to which this is a problem of how to measure benefit. The article argues that this unjust enrichment approach is misguided because it obscures the role of agreement and conflates transfer and exchange, and that a contractual analysis of the case would make the issues clearer and easier to resolve.\",\"PeriodicalId\":344388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"volume\":\"361 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12099\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Civil Procedure eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12099","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

贝内代蒂诉萨维里斯案关注的是量子流的测量,特别是“主观”还是“客观”的测量应该是首选。大法院对这一问题的处理大致与主流学术文献中关于不当得利的方法一致,根据这种方法,这是一个如何衡量利益的问题。文章认为,这种不当得利的方法是错误的,因为它模糊了协议的作用,并将转让和交换混为一谈,对案件进行合同分析将使问题更清楚,更容易解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unjust Enrichment and Contract
Benedetti v Sawiris was concerned with the measure of a quantum meruit, and in particular whether a ‘subjective’ or ‘objective’ measure should be preferred. The Supreme Court addressed the issue broadly in line with the approach in the mainstream academic literature on unjust enrichment, according to which this is a problem of how to measure benefit. The article argues that this unjust enrichment approach is misguided because it obscures the role of agreement and conflates transfer and exchange, and that a contractual analysis of the case would make the issues clearer and easier to resolve.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信