不当得利法中的公正与自由裁量权

Steve Hedley
{"title":"不当得利法中的公正与自由裁量权","authors":"Steve Hedley","doi":"10.1177/1473779519859359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The academic theory of unjust enrichment, hypersensitive to charges that it represents ‘palm-tree justice’, aspires to a high degree of rigour and conceptual unity. The judiciary, while highly receptive to that theory, are nonetheless subject to the demand to do substantial justice in individual cases. This article reviews that tension in contemporary theory and case law. Firstly, it reviews the failure, to date, of theories seeking to justify modern unjust enrichment theory. Next, it notes the increasing rigidity of that theory. Then it reviews recent case law, where judges have evidently allowed other considerations to guide the application of theory. Finally, the article suggests that we have reached the stage where any apparently unfair claim in unjust enrichment will be refused whether or not that unfairness can find a niche in current theory, thus effectively making the liability subject to a judicial discretion.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"65 11","pages":"113 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779519859359","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Justice and discretion in the law of unjust enrichment\",\"authors\":\"Steve Hedley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1473779519859359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The academic theory of unjust enrichment, hypersensitive to charges that it represents ‘palm-tree justice’, aspires to a high degree of rigour and conceptual unity. The judiciary, while highly receptive to that theory, are nonetheless subject to the demand to do substantial justice in individual cases. This article reviews that tension in contemporary theory and case law. Firstly, it reviews the failure, to date, of theories seeking to justify modern unjust enrichment theory. Next, it notes the increasing rigidity of that theory. Then it reviews recent case law, where judges have evidently allowed other considerations to guide the application of theory. Finally, the article suggests that we have reached the stage where any apparently unfair claim in unjust enrichment will be refused whether or not that unfairness can find a niche in current theory, thus effectively making the liability subject to a judicial discretion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common law world review\",\"volume\":\"65 11\",\"pages\":\"113 - 94\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779519859359\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common law world review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779519859359\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779519859359","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

不正当致富的学术理论,对它代表“棕榈树正义”的指控非常敏感,渴望高度严谨和概念统一。司法部门虽然高度接受这一理论,但仍然受制于在个别案件中实现实质正义的要求。本文回顾了当代理论和判例法中的这种张力。首先,它回顾了迄今为止试图为现代不当得利理论辩护的理论的失败。其次,它注意到这一理论日益僵化。然后回顾了最近的判例法,其中法官显然允许其他考虑来指导理论的应用。最后,本文认为,对于不当得利的任何明显不公平的主张,无论这种不公平是否能在现行理论中找到一席之地,都将被拒绝,从而有效地使责任受制于司法自由裁量权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Justice and discretion in the law of unjust enrichment
The academic theory of unjust enrichment, hypersensitive to charges that it represents ‘palm-tree justice’, aspires to a high degree of rigour and conceptual unity. The judiciary, while highly receptive to that theory, are nonetheless subject to the demand to do substantial justice in individual cases. This article reviews that tension in contemporary theory and case law. Firstly, it reviews the failure, to date, of theories seeking to justify modern unjust enrichment theory. Next, it notes the increasing rigidity of that theory. Then it reviews recent case law, where judges have evidently allowed other considerations to guide the application of theory. Finally, the article suggests that we have reached the stage where any apparently unfair claim in unjust enrichment will be refused whether or not that unfairness can find a niche in current theory, thus effectively making the liability subject to a judicial discretion.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信