Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Terminology

  • 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))

  • 350 Accesses

Abstract

The law of unjust enrichment is surrounded by intense controversy. There is not even agreement in relation to the most basic terminology. In fact, a great variety of terms and concepts in this field are rife with academic debates. The terms ‘restitution’ and ‘unjust enrichment’ have been competing with each other to provide the generic name for this area of law for several decades. The terminological confusion has bedevilled this area. To facilitate the study of the law of unjust enrichment, it is necessary to develop a terminological framework with the ultimate goal to allow for a discussion of the same issues by using the same language. This chapter, therefore, seeks to define the legal terms in this area of law and thus to establish a terminological framework. The purpose is not only to ensure terminological consistency throughout this book and to help readers understand my starting premises, but also to facilitate any future discussion in this area.

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.

    For example, Peter Birks based the law of restitution totally on the principle of unjust enrichment in his book An Introduction to the Law of Restitution published in 1985 but rejected to name the area the law of unjust enrichment for a fear of uncertainty of the word ‘unjust’. However, later he made a few recantations to his own work and claimed that the law of unjust enrichment should be separated from the law of restitution and that it is never correct to say that restitution was squarely based on the law of unjust enrichment. Birks (1985a); Birks (1998); Birks (1999), p. 13; Birks (2005).

  2. 2.

    Kull (1995), p. 1191.

  3. 3.

    Many scholars have explained the reasons why using legal terms in a consistent manner is important. For instance, Fullagar (1957), p. 1. Gutteridge emphasized the importance of the consistency of legal terminology in the field of comparative law. Gutteridge (1938), p. 401.

  4. 4.

    American Law Institute (1936). Warren A Seavey and Austin W Scott served as reporters for this project.

  5. 5.

    Goff and Jones (1966).

  6. 6.

    Seavey and Scott (n 4), p. 1. The first article of the US Restatement provides immediately, ‘A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to another’, which shows that the subject of this US Restatement is actually the law of unjust enrichment. Goff & Jones is also opened with the sentence that ‘The law of restitution is the law relating to all claims, quasi-contractual or otherwise, which are founded on the principle of unjust enrichment’. Ibid 3.

  7. 7.

    E.g. Birks (1985a); Hedley (2001); Virgo (1999); Burrows (2002).

  8. 8.

    Peter Birks made a recantation, using the title ‘the law of unjust enrichment’ instead of ‘the law of restitution’ in his works. Birks (1985b). The third edition of the US Restatement was published in July 2010 and renamed as Restatement (Third) of Restiution and Unjust Enrichment. American Law Institute (2010). The newly published edition of The Law of Restitution by Goff and Jones is renamed as Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment in 2011. Mitchell et al. (2011) [Goff & Jones on Unjust Enrichment 2011]; Andrew Burrows who wrote a book The Law of Restitution, published A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment in 2012 as well. Burrows (2002); Burrows (2012).

  9. 9.

    Birks (2003), p. 1, 20. Birks proposes that it is inelegant to categorize the law by contract, tort and restitution because the law should be categorized by events rather than responses. In addition, the most distinguishing feature within the law of restitution is the principle of unjust enrichment. By admitting restitution can be trigger by events other than unjust enrichment, restitution fails to identify a discrete body of law. Birks (1985b), p. 1, 283.

  10. 10.

    Infra, Sect. 2.2.4 in this chapter.

  11. 11.

    Birks (1985b), p. 20; Mitchell (2011), p. 4.

  12. 12.

    Chinese Civil Code, art 122.

  13. 13.

    Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd [1999] 1 AC 221 (HL) 227 (Lord Steyn), 234 (Lord Hoffmann). The Chinese and English laws of unjust enrichment follow two divergent approaches, the ‘absence of basis’ approach and ‘unjust factors’ approach, which are discussed in Chaps. 3 and 5 in detail respectively.

  14. 14.

    Birks (1989), p. 9, 16; Birks (1990), p. 1, 4.

  15. 15.

    Birks and Mitchell (2000), p. 591.

  16. 16.

    Lodder (2012), p. 7; Kull (1995), pp. 1212–1213; Birks (1985b), p. 67, 70.

  17. 17.

    Dietrich (1998), p. 8.

  18. 18.

    Birks (2001), p. 231, 232.

  19. 19.

    Virgo (1999), p. 17.

  20. 20.

    Birks (1989), p. 17; Goff and Jones (2002), p. 3, 14; Burrows (1995). p. 149; Millett (1998), p. 399, 408; Pitel (2004), p. 344.

  21. 21.

    Mitchell et al. (2011), p. 4.

  22. 22.

    Birks (1989), p. 17.

  23. 23.

    Birks (1985b), p. 4; Virgo (1996), p. 20.

  24. 24.

    See Mitchell (2015), p. 240.

  25. 25.

    For a detailed account of the claimant’s entitlement to compensation for unjust enrichment, see Sect. 3.5.4 in Chap. 3.

  26. 26.

    Birks (1985b), p. 4; Mitchell et al. (2011), p. 4; Pitel (2004), p. 344.

  27. 27.

    Mitchell et al. (2011), p. 4. Unjust enrichment is not the only event causing gain-based remedies in Chinese law. For example, restitution may be awarded for the commission of a tort to a personal right or interest of another person in certain circumstances according to Article 1182 of the Chinese Civil Code. For a more detailed discussion, see infra, section “Tort Law” in Chap. 3.

  28. 28.

    Birks (1985b), p. 11, 22, and 25.

  29. 29.

    Mitchell et al. (2011), p. 81.

  30. 30.

    Lodder (2012), p. 34.

  31. 31.

    Ibid 14.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Ibid 20.

  34. 34.

    Birks (1985b), p. 52.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    Ibid. For a detailed discussion of the definition of wealth, see also Lodder (2012), pp. 31–32.

  37. 37.

    American Law Institute (1936), p. 12.

  38. 38.

    Lodder (2012), p. 34.

  39. 39.

    Mitchell et al. (2011), p. 81.

  40. 40.

    Lodder (2012), p. 34.

  41. 41.

    Ibid ch 3; Birks (1997), pp. 2, 7–8.

  42. 42.

    The distinction of value-based and rights-based enrichment is based on whether the defendant is enriched by the value of the received benefit or by a specific right. Chambers (2009).

  43. 43.

    Generally, a defendant is factually enriched if he or she has received something that has a value, i.e. money, the use of an asset and the provision of a service. A defendant may be legally enriched through ‘the acquisition of a right, or the release of an obligation owned’. Lodder (2012), ch 3.

  44. 44.

    Birks (1985b), p. 281.

  45. 45.

    See supra, Sect. 2.2.3 in this chapter.

  46. 46.

    Birks (1985b), p. 282.

  47. 47.

    Edelman (2002), pp. 65–80; Smith (1992), p. 672; McInnes (1999), pp. 118, 120–122.

  48. 48.

    Pitel (2004), p. 348.

  49. 49.

    ‘Unjustified enrichment’ is used by some scholars in replace of unjust enrichment. For example, Johnston and Zimmermann (2002); Nicholas (1962), p. 605.

  50. 50.

    Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burr 1005, 1012. Lord Mansfield referred the money as the enrichment, which could not in conscience be retained. There are scholars using the term ‘unconscionable enrichment’ in replace of unjust enrichment or certain kinds of unjust enrichment. See Saprai (2009).

  51. 51.

    Giglio (2003), p. 455; Zimmermann (1995), p. 403.

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Birks (1989), p. 19.

  54. 54.

    Dannemann (2009), p. 26; Birks (1985b), p. 275.

  55. 55.

    Dannemann (2009), pp. 156–157. Section 812 of the German Civil Code stipulates that ‘[a] person who, without a legal cause, obtains something by way of another person’s performance or in some other way at another’s expense, is obliged to surrender to that person what he has so obtained’. It is widely accepted that the performance serves the bright line that divides unjust enrichment into the two categories. But there was and still is much debate on this distinction. For an account in English of this debate, see Krebs (2001), pp. 201–237; Zimmermann and du Plessis (1994), pp. 14, 24–30; Juentgen (2002), p. 505, 515.

  56. 56.

    Infra, Sect. 4.3 in Chap. 4.

  57. 57.

    Juentgen (2002), p. 514; Zimmermann and Du Plessis (1994), p. 26; Schermaier (2006), p. 363, 372.

  58. 58.

    Juentgen (2002), p. 515; Dannemann (2009), p. 34; Zimmermann (1995), p. 405.

  59. 59.

    Dannemann (2009), p. 87.

  60. 60.

    Ibid. The three subdivisions of non-performance-based unjust enrichment are described as interference (Eingriff), expenditure (Verwendung), and recourse (Rückgriff). Von Bar and Swann (2010), p. 102.

  61. 61.

    Birks (1989), p. 26.

  62. 62.

    The origination of the English law of restitution is discussed in infra, Sect. 5.4 in Chap. 5.

  63. 63.

    See supra, Sect. 2.2.1 in this chapter.

References

  • American Law Institute (1936) Restatement of the law of restitution: quasi contracts and constructive trusts. American Law Institute Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • American Law Institute (2010) Restatement (third) of restiution and unjust enrichment. American Law Institute Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (1985a) An introduction to the law of restitution. Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (1985b) Unjust enrichment - a reply to Mr Hedley. Leg Stud 5:67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (1989) An introduction to the law of restitution, Rev edn. Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (1990) The independence of restitutionary causes of action. Univ Queensl Law J 16:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (1997) On taking seriously the difference between tracing and claiming. Trust Law Int 11:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (1998) Misnomer. In: Cornish WR et al (eds) Restitution: past, present and future: essays in honour of Gareth Jones. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (1999) The law of restitution at the end of an epoch. Univ West Aust Law Rev 28:13

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (2001) Property, unjust enrichment, and tracing. Curr Leg Probl 54:231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birks P (2003) A letter to America: the new restatement of restitution. Global Jurist Front 3:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Birks P, Mitchell C (2000) Unjust enrichment. In: Birks P (ed) English private law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows A (1995) Understanding the law of restitution: a map through the thicket. Univ Queensl Law J 18:149

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrows A (2002) The law of restitution, 2nd edn. Butterworths

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich J (1998) Restitution: a new perspective. Federation Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman J (2002) Gain-based damages: contract, tort, equity and intellectual property. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullagar WK (1957) Legal terminology. Melbourne Univ Law Rev 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Giglio F (2003) A systematic approach to “unjust” and “unjustified” enrichment. Oxf J Leg Stud 23:455

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goff R, Jones G (2002) The law of restitution, 6th edn. Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutteridge HC (1938) The comparative aspects of legal terminology. Tulane Law Rev 12:401

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedley S (2001) A critical introduction to restitution. Butterworths

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Juentgen DA (2002) Unjustified enrichment in Germany and New Zealand law. Canterbury Law Rev 8:505

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs T (2001) Restitution at the crossroads: a comparative study. Cavendish Publishing Ltd

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodder A (2012) Enrichment in the law of unjust enrichment and restitution. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • McInnes M (1999) Restitution, unjust enrichment and the perfect quadration book. Restitution Law Rev 118

    Google Scholar 

  • Millett P (1998) Restitution and constructive trusts. Law Quart Rev 114:399

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell C (2015) Unjust enrichment. In: Burrows A (ed) Principles of the English law of obligations. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell C, Mitchell P, Watterson S (eds) (2011) Goff & Jones: the law of unjust enrichment, 8th edn. Sweet & Maxwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas B (1962) Unjustified enrichment in the civil law and Louisiana law. Tulane Law Rev 36:605

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitel SGA (2004) Characterisation of unjust enrichment in the conflict of laws. In: Neyers JW, McInnes M, Pitel SGA (eds) Understanding unjust enrichment. Hart Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Saprai P (2009) Unconscionable enrichment? In: Chambers R, Mitchell C, Penner J (eds) Philosophical foundations of the law of unjust enrichment. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schermaier MJ (2006) “Performance-based” and “non-performance based” enrichment claims: the German pattern. Eur Rev Priv Law 3:363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith L (1992) The province of the law of restitution. Canadian Bar Rev 71:672

    Google Scholar 

  • Virgo G (1996) Reconstructing restitution. Trust Law Int 10:20

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bar C, Swann S (2010) Unjustified Enrichment: (PEL Unj. Enr.) (trans: Swan S, McCannon P, Singleton S). Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R (1995) Unjustified enrichment: the modern civilian approach. Oxf J Leg Stud 15:403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann R, du Plessis J (1994) Basic features of the German law of unjustified enrichment. Restitution Law Rev 14

    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

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). Terminology. 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_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06178-3_2

  • 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