The yoking of unconscionability and unjust enrichment in Australia

Given problems with, and judicial criticism of, unjust enrichment as a principle, it is necessary and appropriate that unjust enrichment be subsumed by the expanding doctrine of unconscionability - could create a unifying concept which can be applied to achieve justice in a variety of different contexts - triggers for equitable intervention to reverse or adjust transfers of resources on the basis of unconscionability - where there is neither real consent or real consideration - where either variable is absent and it is unclear whether the other is satisfied - approach would inject principle into unconscionability and explain and justify the need for reversing or adjusting the transfer of property or other resources in some circumstances.

Concepts and principles in unjust enrichment : a comparative study

The Thesis was inspired by a perceived need better to understand the unique description of unjust enrichment by the Australian courts, as a unifying legal concept. It demonstrates that concepts and principles are essential features of the common law because they identify the character and taxonomy of rules. The comparative study, encompassing Australian and English law primarily, and law of other jurisdictions, modern and ancient, elucidates the special characteristics of the concepts and principles of Anglo/Australian unjust enrichment and of concepts and principles generally. A like concept has had a place in the common law since its inception under several characterisations. It bears the mark of ancient Roman jurisprudence, but relates to independent principles. The jurisprudence was formed by special characteristics of its history. It is distinct from modern Roman/Dutch law but the doctrinal overtones of its foundational case law reflect the basis of reasoning which in Continental law, is found in the adopted ancient codes. It is this foundation of reasoning and the firm rejection of a normative general principle that makes Anglo/Australian law different in character and jurisprudence from unjust enrichment in USA and Canada. Stifled for centuries by quasi contract misconceptions, the law of unjust enrichment entered the modern law in the 20th C through the seminal judgements of Lord Wright in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Coombe Barbour Ltd, and related cases and through the strong judicial and juristic following they inspired. That “…any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for … unjust enrichment…” became an imperative across the common law world: it has long held a place in the Roman Dutch jurisdictions of South Africa and Continental Europe. The special character of unjust enrichment in Anglo/Australian law is focussed upon a unique action where-by the law imposes an obligation upon the establishment of a recognised ground. The notion of breach of a primary rule does not arise: the obligation is therefore a primary obligation imposed by law, as distinct from a remedy for a breach. Important consequences flow from the characteristic. The juristic development of unjust enrichment in the common law has long been the sole prerogative of the superior courts. The place of historical features of the jurisprudence has however been subsumed by modern judicial methodology that is slowly assuming a unifying pattern of reasoning from case to case; from one ground to another. This is the special characteristic of the unifying legal concept and English principle of unjust enrichment. The thesis draws widely based conclusions about concepts and principles of unjust enrichment and the actions and obligations they sponsor. It portrays them as the substance of legal reasoning and analyses underlying theory. to this end, it addresses counter juristic and historical arguments. Its central conclusion are that there are sound jurisprudential arguments for actions based upon a unifying legal concept and English principle of unjust enrichment, and that the explanation of the unjust enrichment concept as the foundation of an independent branch of the common law and taxonomy is theoretically sustainable. In this manner concepts and principles of the common law are demonstrated as critical characteristics of the common law at large.

A legal realist approach to unjust enrichment

This paper was concerned with the realist critique and why it is incompatible with the modern law of unjust enrichment.

A qualificação do lucro da intervenção:responsabilidade civil ou enriquecimento sem causa?

O presente estudo tem por objetivo demonstrar que, nas hipóteses em que alguém intervém na esfera jurídica alheia e obtém benefícios econômicos sem causar danos ao titular do direito ou, causando danos, o lucro obtido pelo ofensor é superior aos danos causados, as regras da responsabilidade civil, isoladamente, não são suficientes, à luz do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, enquanto sanção eficaz pela violação de um interesse merecedor de tutela. Isto porque, como a principal função da responsabilidade civil é remover o dano, naquelas hipóteses, não fosse a utilização de um remédio alternativo, o interventor faria seu o lucro da intervenção, no primeiro caso integralmente e, no segundo, no valor equivalente ao saldo entre o lucro obtido e a indenização que tiver que pagar à vítima. A tese pretende demonstrar que o problema do lucro da intervenção não deve ser solucionado por intermédio das regras da responsabilidade civil, devendo, portanto, ser rejeitadas as propostas de solução neste campo, como a interpretação extensiva do parágrafo único, do artigo 944, do Código Civil, as indenizações punitivas e o chamado terceiro método de cálculo da indenização. Como alternativa, propõe-se o enquadramento dogmático do lucro da intervenção no enriquecimento sem causa, outorgando ao titular do direito uma pretensão de restituição do lucro obtido pelo ofensor em razão da indevida ingerência em seus bens ou direitos. Defende-se que a transferência do lucro da intervenção para o titular do direito tem por fundamento a ponderação dos interesses em jogo à luz da Constituição Federal, com especial atenção ao princípio da solidariedade, e da teoria da destinação jurídica dos bens. A tese procura demonstrar, ainda, que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro não exige um efetivo empobrecimento do titular do direito para a configuração do enriquecimento sem causa e que a regra da subsidiariedade não impede a cumulação de ações, de responsabilidade civil para eliminar o dano (e no limite do dano), e de enriquecimento sem causa, para forçar a restituição do saldo positivo que permanecer no patrimônio do ofensor após o pagamento da indenização, se houver. Finalmente, a tese pretende provocar a discussão acerca da quantificação do objeto da restituição, propondo alguns critérios que deverão orientar o aplicador do direito.

A contribuição de melhoria como instrumento de política urbana

Com o crescimento desordenado das cidades, surgiu a necessidade de um planejamento urbano adequado, que garantisse a dignidade da pessoa humana e o respeito aos direitos fundamentais. Em um sistema tributário inchado, com reformas desastrosas e o colapso financeiro de Municípios, alternativas de solução para o problema do crescimento das cidades são essenciais. A contribuição de melhoria, tributo pioneiramente previsto na Constituição Federal de 1934, é uma dessas alternativas, na medida em que pode representar importante e justo meio de obtenção de recursos públicos que financiem políticas urbanas. Ademais, o tributo em questão atende aos princípios jurídicos, como o da capacidade contributiva e aquele que veda o enriquecimento sem causa. A contribuição de melhoria, inspirada particularmente no special assessment do direito norte-americano e na betterment tax inglesa, também é uma expressiva forma de consagração da função social da propriedade. A depender de vontade política e de iniciativas administrativas, a contribuição de melhoria pode gerar resultados inusitados para a ordenação do crescimento das cidades no Brasil, para o atendimento da função social da propriedade e para o respeito aos direitos fundamentais, daí dever-se reconhecer seu caráter de relevante instrumento de política urbana.

Restitution law

Contains comprehensive extracts of the most significant cases from Australia and England. Explains the various academic views in areas where these are likely to be influential and incorporates a number of important new cases. Includes new sections dealing with practical questions such as pleading a claim in restitution.

Apuração de haveres na sociedade limitada: uma análise crítica da jurisprudência

Esta dissertação tem por objetivo investigar a apuração de haveres nas sociedades limitadas a partir da análise da jurisprudência, notadamente para compreender o alcance da liberdade de contratar das partes, estabelecido, entre outras normas, no artigo 1.031 do Código Civil. Para tanto, analisaram-se os julgados do STJ, disponíveis no sítio eletrônico da corte e, da mesma forma, os do TJSP, dada a relevância econômica do estado e a existência de câmaras especializadas em direito empresarial, entre o período de 2010 a 2014. Tentou-se construir uma tipologia das questões que compõem o julgamento das cláusulas de apuração de haveres, como, por exemplo, distinção entre forma de apuração e forma de pagamento; e, igualmente, dos fundamentos usados pelos tribunais para afastar ou aplicar as cláusulas. Na segunda seção, fez-se uma análise crítica dos argumentos jurisprudenciais, sob a forma de defesa daqueles que, a nosso sentir, devem validar as cláusulas de apuração de haveres, quais sejam: boa-fé objetiva, função social e os constantes na literatura americana do capital lock in. Além disso, pontua-se sobre o emprego, a nosso sentir, inadequado do “enriquecimento sem causa”, como também da conveniência de se fazer uma aplicação ponderada dos princípios, especialmente quando contrariam uma regra jurídica positivada. Por fim, antes de concluir, comentou-se sobre a forma de apuração de haveres construída pela jurisprudência, a qual denomina-se, neste trabalho, dissolução total simulada.

A Law and Economics Analysis of Trade Secrets: Optimal Scope of Law, Misappropriation and Alternative Damages Regimes

This thesis is primarily based on three core chapters, focused on the fundamental issues of trade secrets law. The goal of this thesis is to come up with policy recommendations to improve legal structure governing trade secrets. The focal points of this research are the following. What is the optimal scope of trade secrets law? How does it depend on the market characteristics such as degree of product differentiation between competing products? What factors need to be considered to balance the contradicting objectives of promoting innovation and knowledge diffusion? The second strand of this research focuses on the desirability of lost profits or unjust enrichment damage regimes in case of misappropriation of a trade secret. A comparison between these regimes is made and simple policy implications are extracted from the analysis. The last part of this research is an empirical analysis of a possible relationship between trade secrets sharing and misappropriation instances faced by firms.

Claims for non-contractual services

The paper argued that the basis of non-contractual claims was reliance rather than unjust enrichment, criticising the unjust enrichment explanation as being premised on a number of unnecessary legal fictions which also undermine the more general coherence of unjust enrichment.

The availability of proprietary restitution in cases of mistaken payments

This article is concerned with the availability of “proprietary restitution” in cases of mistaken payments. It is argued that the mistake of the claimant is an insufficient justification for proprietary restitution, however a close analysis of the case law demonstrates that the presence of additional factors can justify the availability of proprietary restitution in specific circumstances. The basis of proprietary restitution is to be found in the breach of a duty which arises separately from the claim for unjust enrichment. The significant contribution of this article is the analysis that knowledge merely creates a duty to maintain the fund until restitution is made, and that knowledge cannot establish the breach of this duty. Importantly, breach of this duty is established by a second condition which is demonstrated by the wilful misconduct of the recipient. It is this conduct which justifies the imposition of the constructive trust. By adopting this analysis, the proprietary claim in the context of mistaken transfers can be classified as forming part of the law of wrongs, rather than the law of unjust enrichment.

Rescission and substitute property:Bainbridge v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch)

One of the unresolved issues concerning equity’s jurisdiction to set aside dispositions for mistake is the nature of the proprietary consequences that ensue. The decision in Bainbridge v Bainbridge sheds further light on this important issue, but also illustrates that some important aspects concerning the application of rescission needs further clarification. The key issue concerned the rescission of a trust, where parts of the land had been sold by the trustees who had used the proceeds of sale to buy two new plots of land. Part of the reasoning used by Master Matthews relied upon authorities, developed in the context of fraudulently induced transfers of money, which requires careful consideration of the relationship between the principle in Pitt v Holt and unjust enrichment.