Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Law of Unjust Enrichment in China: Necessary or Not?

Part of the book series: China-EU Law Series ((CELS,volume 8))

  • 357 Accesses

Abstract

The law of unjust enrichment, sometimes known as the law of restitution, is among the most debated private law subjects in many jurisdictions and is regarded as one of the most complicated of all areas of law. Generally, the law of unjust enrichment provides rules, under which if one is enriched without a legal ground or as a result of certain ‘unjust factors’, the party suffering a loss therefrom is entitled to recover what has been lost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Percy Winfield once described unjust enrichment or restitution as ‘no man’s land… not in the sense that there are constant battles for it, but that nobody wants it’. Winfield (1931), p. 118; See also Burrows (2004), p. 14.

  2. 2.

    Civilian and mixed systems, e.g. Germany, Scotland, South Africa and China, commonly have organized their laws of unjust enrichment based on the ‘absence of basis’ approach. Canada, as a common law jurisdiction, recently shifted to the ‘absence of basis’ approach as well. Garland v Consumer’s Gas Co., [2004] 1 SCR 629.

  3. 3.

    Common law jurisdictions adopting the ‘unjust factors’ approach to unjust enrichment include England, the USA and Australia.

  4. 4.

    In this book, ‘China’ and ‘Mainland China’ are used to refer only to the People’s Republic of China, excluding Macau Special Administrative Region, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Taiwan Region.

  5. 5.

    Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minfa Zongze (中华人民共和国民法总则) [General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China] (Promulgated by the National People’s Congress (‘NPC’) on 15 March 2017, effective since 1 October 2017, expired on 1 January 2021). When promulgated in 2017, the General Provisions was designed to be incorporated into and become Book I of the Chinese Civil Code planned to be promulgated in 2020. Therefore, when the Chinese Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China comes into effect on 1 January 2021, the General Provisions was incorporated as Book I of the civil code and repealed simultaneously. See Liu (2020b). Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minfa Dian (中华人民共和国民法典) [Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the NPC on 28 May 2020, effective since 1 January 2021).

  6. 6.

    Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minfa Tongze (中华人民共和国民法通则) [General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the NPC on 12 April 1986, effective since 1 January 1987, last amended on 27 August 2009, expired on 1 January 2021). For a discussion of the relationship between the GPCL and the General Provisions, see Sect. 3.3.2 in Chap. 3.

  7. 7.

    Article 92 of the GPCL regulates the concept of unjust enrichment in a similar way to Article 122 of the General Provisions, which stipulates, ‘Where a person acquires unjust benefits without a legal basis and causes another’s loss, the person shall return the unjust benefits to the person who suffers a loss’. For a more detailed account of the provision concerning unjust enrichment in the GPCL, see Sect. 3.4.5.5 in Chap. 3.

  8. 8.

    Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Guanyu Guanche Zhixing Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minfa Tongze Ruogan Wenti De Yijian (Shixing) (最高人民法院关于贯彻执行《中华人民共和国民法通则》若干问题的意见(试行)) [Opinions of the SPC on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China (For Trial Implementation)] (promulgated by the SPC on 26 January 1988, effective since the same date, expired on 1 January 2021).

  9. 9.

    E.g., Huo (2006), pp. 83 and 87; Tang (2013), p. 128.

  10. 10.

    Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Minfa Dian (中华人民共和国民法典) [Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the NPC on 28 May 2020, effective since 1 January 2020).

  11. 11.

    Much academic ink has been spilt over the new Chinese law of unjust enrichment after the promulgation of the Chinese Civil Code. A few examples are listed here: Liu (2020a), p. 26; Chen (2020), p. 5; Wang (2020), p. 51.

  12. 12.

    Legal textbooks on Chinese civil law usually contain a chapter introducing ‘unjust enrichment’. For example, Jiang (2011); Wei (2007), pp. 592–598. However, there are still only a handful of comprehensive analyses of Chinese law of unjust enrichment. For details, see infra Sect. 3.6.3.1 in Chap. 3.

  13. 13.

    Goff and Jones published their pioneer work, The Law of Restitution, in 1966 when the subject was barely known in England and its 9th edition Goff and Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment has been published in 2016. Goff and Jones (1966). Later, many other textbooks (notably, Peter Birks, Unjust Enrichment, Graham Virgo, The Principles of the Law of Restitution and Andrew Burrows, A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment) and numerous collections of essays contributed to the development of the law of restitution and unjust enrichment. Birks (2005); Virgo (1999); Burrows (2012). The discussion of unjust enrichment also gave birth to a specialized academic journal, Restitution Law Review, which updates the latest information on the subject internationally.

  14. 14.

    Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221 (HL) 227; Johnston and Zimmermann (2002), pp. 8–9.

  15. 15.

    Chinese Civil Code, art 2.

  16. 16.

    Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xinfa (中华人民共和国刑法) [Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China] (promulgated by the NPC on 1 July 1979, effective since 1 October 1997, last amended on 26 December 2020), arts 64 and 264.

  17. 17.

    Dannemann (2009), p. 4.

  18. 18.

    Chinese Civil Code, art 122; Birks (2005), p. 11.

  19. 19.

    Chinese Civil Code, art 464.

  20. 20.

    Zhang and Guo (2008), p. 12.

  21. 21.

    Chinese Civil Code, art 235.

  22. 22.

    The ‘abstract or casual approach’ is about whether a particular legal system separates the validity of the real act to transfer property ownership from the validity of the underlying obligatory contract and whether the validity of the obligatory contract and the validity of the real act affect each other. For a more detailed discussion, see infra, Sect. 3.3.4 in Chap. 3.

  23. 23.

    Exploring the theoretical foundations of the law of unjust enrichment and inspecting what justice demands is a distinct and complicated area. A number of private law theorists have offered discussions of the philosophical foundations of unjust enrichment. e.g. Chambers et al. (2009); Webb (2016); Klimchuk (2004).

  24. 24.

    Problems existing in the current Chinese law of unjust enrichment are discussed in Sect. 4.2 of Chap. 4.

  25. 25.

    Cf. Liu (2013), p. 221. Although in comparison to previous regulations, the Chinese Civil Code expands provisions of unjust enrichment, some highly controversial issues in practice remain unsettled under the current Chinese law of unjust enrichment. For details, see infra, Sect. 4.2 in Chap. 4.

  26. 26.

    For instance, Lou (2012), p. 110; Hong and Zhang (2003), p. 42; Liu (2020b).

  27. 27.

    Wang (2011), pp. 107 and 109. The same view is proposed by scholars in other jurisdictions. Steyn (1997), pp. 433 and 434. See also Brownsword (2000), p. 23.

  28. 28.

    Wang (2011), pp. 109–110.

  29. 29.

    Scholars in other jurisdictions also propose the same view. See Robertson (2009), p. 3.

  30. 30.

    The circularity problem happens not only in the Chinese law of unjust enrichment, but also in the law of unjust enrichment in common law jurisdictions. Nadler (2008), pp. 245 and 246.

  31. 31.

    Kull (1995), pp. 1191 and 1193.

  32. 32.

    Hutchinson and Duncan (2012), pp. 83 and 101.

  33. 33.

    Dobinson and Johns (2007), p. 22.

  34. 34.

    Ibid 19.

  35. 35.

    Reitz (1998), pp. 617 and 620; Dannemann (2006), pp. 384–385.

  36. 36.

    Sacco (1991), pp. 1–5; Schlesinger et al. (1988), p. 309.

  37. 37.

    Watkins and Burton (2013), pp. 100–101.

  38. 38.

    Watson (1993), p. 95.

  39. 39.

    Palmer (2005), pp. 261, 284.

  40. 40.

    Cf. Oderkerk (2001), p. 293; also compare Wolff (2018), p. 151; Gallagher et al. (2020), pp. 337 and 339.

  41. 41.

    Dannemann (2009), p. 2.

  42. 42.

    Oderkerk (2001), p. 313.

  43. 43.

    Sacco (1991), p. 6.

  44. 44.

    Oderkerk (2001), p. 303.

  45. 45.

    The statement that China is a civil law country is not free from controversy and some may assert that China’s legal system is hybridized in nature or is a ‘socialist system with Chinese characteristics’ as proclaimed by itself. However, in terms of the fundamental distinguishing elements between civil law jurisdictions and common law jurisdictions, China is a civil law country. Chinese law and regulations are made by its legislative and administrative branches, which do not originate with judicial decisions made by courts over time. See Wan (2012), ch 9.

  46. 46.

    Chinese Civil Code, art 122.

  47. 47.

    Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221 (HL) 234. See infra, Sect. 5.5 in Chap. 5.

  48. 48.

    Zweigert and Kötz (1998), p. 34.

  49. 49.

    Supra, Sect. 1.2 in this chapter.

  50. 50.

    Bei Da Fa Bao (北大法宝) (Pkulaw), online: Pkulaw < http://www.pkulaw.cn/>.

References

Books, Book Chapters, Articles, Websites and Blogs

  • Birks P (2005) Unjust enrichment, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword R (2000) Contract law: themes for the twenty-first century. Butterworths

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows A (2004) The English law of restitution: a ten-year review. In: Neyers JW, McInnes M, Pitel SGA (eds) Understanding unjust enrichment. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows A (2012) A restatement of the English law of unjust enrichment. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers R, Mitchell C, Penner J (eds) (2009) Philosophical foundations of the law of unjust enrichment. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z (2020) Bu Dang De Li Fa Tixi Zhi Zai Goucheng – Weirao Minfa Dian Zhankai [The reorganization of the system of the law of unjust enrichment – a discussion surrounding the Chinese Civil Code]. North Leg Sci 5:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannemann G (2006) Comparative law: study of similarities or difference? In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannemann G (2009) The German law of unjustified enrichment and restitution: a comparative introduction. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dobinson I, Johns F (2007) Qualitative legal research. In: McConville M, Chui WH (eds) Research methods for law. Edinburgh University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher S, Lin S, Wolff L-C (2020) The history of a mystery: the evolution of the law of unjust enrichment in Germany, England and China. Int Comp Policy Ethics Law Rev 3(2):337

    Google Scholar 

  • Goff R, Jones G (1966) The law of restitution, 1st edn. Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong X, Zhang L (2003) Bu Dang De Li Fanhuan Qingqiu Quan Yu Qita Qingqiu Quan De Jinghe Yanjiu [Research on the concurrent relationship between the unjust enrichment claim and other claims]. Mod Law Sci 5:42

    Google Scholar 

  • Huo Z (2006) Zhongguo Bu Dang De Li Zhidu De Goujian Yu Wanshan – Yi Bijiao Fa Wei Shijiao [The establishment and improvement of the Chinese law of unjust enrichment – a comparative law perspective]. Seeking Truth 2:83

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson T, Duncan N (2012) Defining and describing what we do: doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Rev 17:83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang P (ed) (2011) Minfa Xue [The civil law theory], 2nd edn. China University of Political Science and Law Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston D, Zimmermann R (2002) Unjustified enrichment: surveying the landscape. In: Johnston D, Zimmermann R (eds) Unjustified enrichment: key issues in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klimchuk D (2004) Unjust enrichment and corrective justice. In: Neyers JW, McInnes M, Pitel SGA (eds) Understanding unjust enrichment. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull A (1995) Rationalizing restitution. Calif Law Rev 83:1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y (2013) Bu Dang De Li Fa De Xingcheng Yu Zhankai [The formation and development of the law of unjustified enrichment]. Law Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu S (2020a) Minfa Dian Bu Dang De Li Qingqiuquan De Dingwei ji Xiangguan Susong Wenti [The position of claims in unjust enrichment in the Chinese Civil Code and relevant litigation issues]. Natl Judges College Law J 19:26

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu D (ed) (2020b) Zhongguo Minfadian De Dansheng! [The birth of the Chinese Civil Code]. http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c30834/202005/1247ca1d376e47e9b02a3053dd438e2d.shtml. Accessed 21 Sept 2021

  • Lou A (2012) Bu Dang De Li “Meiyou Hefa Genju” Zhi Gainian Chengqing- Geiyu “Jifu” Gainian De Zhongguo Fa Chongshi [Clarification of the concept ‘Without a Legal Basis’ of unjust enrichment- providing the concept of ‘Performance’ with an interpretation in the context of Chinese Law]. Sci Law (J Northwest Univ Polit Sci Law) 6:110

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler JM (2008) What right does unjust enrichment law protect? Oxf J Leg Stud 2:245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oderkerk M (2001) The importance of context: selecting legal systems in comparative legal research. Netherlands Int Law Rev 48:293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer V (2005) From Lerotholi to Lando: some examples of comparative law methodology. Am J Comp Law 53:261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reitz JC (1998) How to do comparative law. Am J Comp Law 46:617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson A (2009) Introduction: goals, rights and obligations. In: Robertson A, Wu TH (eds) The goals of private law. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco R (1991) Legal formants: a dynamic approach to comparative law (installment I of II). Am J Comp Law 39:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger R et al (1988) Comparative law: cases, text, materials, 5th edn. Foundation Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyn J (1997) Contract law: fulfilling the reasonable expectations of honest men. Law Q Rev 113:433

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang C (2013) Deguo Bu Dang De Li Fa De Gouzao Yu Zhongguo Bu Dang De Li Fa De Wanshan [The structure of the Geman law of unjust enrichment and the perfection of the Chinese law of unjust enrichment]. Beihang Law Rev 1:128

    Google Scholar 

  • Virgo G (1999) The principles of the law of restitution. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wan M (ed) (2012) Reading the legal cases: cross-currents between law and the humanities. Cavendish Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang L (2011) Qinquan Zeren Fa Yu Hetong Fa De Jiefen – Yi Qinquan Zeren Fa De Kuozhang Wei Shiye [The distinction between tort liability law and contract law – from the perspective of the expansion of the tort liability law]. China Leg Sci 3:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang D (2020) Minfa Dian Zhong Bu Dang De Li De Lifa Jiedu He Sifa Shiyong [Legislative interpretation and judicial application of the law of unjust enrichment in the Chinese Civil Code]. Chin Procurators 15:51

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins D, Burton M (2013) Research methods in law. Cavendish Publishing

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watson A (1993) Legal transplants: an approach to comparative law, 2nd edn. University of Georgia Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb C (2016) Reason and restitution: a theory of unjust enrichment. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wei Z (ed) (2007) Minfa [Civil law]. Peking University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfield PH (1931) The province of the law of tort. Cambridge University Press, p 118

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff L-C (2018) Comparing Chinese law … but, with which legal systems? Chin J Comp Law 6:151

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Guo M (2008) Qinquan Zeren Qingqiu Quan Yu Zhaiquan De Guanxi [The relationship between tort liability claims and obligatory claims]. In: Yi J (ed) Si Fa [Private law]. Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law (trans: Weir T), 3rd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong

    Siyi Lin

Authors
  1. Siyi Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Cases

Cases

  • Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221 (HL)

  • Garland v Consumer’s Gas Co., [2004] 1 SCR 629

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lin, S. (2022). Introduction. In: The Law of Unjust Enrichment in China: Necessary or Not?. China-EU Law Series, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06178-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06178-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06177-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06178-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation