.
*the english law of “unjust enrichment” is part of the english law of ‘obligations’, along with the law of [‘contract’ / ‘tort’ / ‘trusts’]*
.
(the law of ‘unjust enrichment’ deals with circumstances in which one person is required make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust)
(the modern law of unjust enrichment encompasses what was once known as the “law of quasi-contract”)
(its precise scope remains a matter of controversy)
(beyond quasi-contract, it is sometimes said to encompass the law relating to subrogation, contribution, recoupment, and claims to the traceable substitutes of misapplied property)
(english courts have recognised that there are four steps required to establish a claim in “unjust enrichment”)
.
(if the following elements are satisfied, a claimant has a ‘prima facie’ right to restitution:)
(1) the defendant has been enriched;
(2) this enrichment is at the claimant’s expense;
(3) this enrichment at the claimant’s expense is unjust; and
(4) there is no applicable bar or defense
(the law of ‘unjust enrichment’ is among the most unsettled areas of ‘english law’)
(its existence as a separate body of law was only explicitly recognised in 1991 in “Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd”)
.
(while the ‘law’ has rapidly developed over the last 2 decades, controversy continues over the precise structure, scope and nature of the law of “unjust enrichment”)
.
.
.
.
.
.
💕💝💖💓🖤💙🖤💙🖤💙🖤❤️💚💛🧡❣️💞💔💘❣️🧡💛💚❤️🖤💜🖤💙🖤💙🖤💗💖💝💘
.
.
*🌈✨ *TABLE OF CONTENTS* ✨🌷*
.
.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥*we won the war* 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥