Unjustified enrichment-Basic rule
Agnew v Fraser - correct answer-- condictio indebiti
- money wasnt due
- receiver has no title, moral or legal, to retain
Basic rule - correct answer-- enrichment of 1 party (defender)
- at the expense of another (pursuer)
- no legal ground to retain the enrichment
- reversing the enrichment must be equitable between the parties
- which remedies need to be selected
- authority in Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) v CIN Properties
- enrichment is justified where is legal ground such as unconditional donation/gift or
performance of valid contract,
Bona fide perception and consumption - correct answer-- posser is generally liable to restore
the thing possessed and its fruits and accessions during his possession
- if identification and exploitation of such fruits, it will usually avoid the liability
Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding - correct answer-- frustration
Change of position, loss of enrichment - correct answer-- party spent, consumed or
otherwise disposed of an enrichment
- therefore is no longer enriched
- may be able to escape liability in part or whole
- requirements: (1) reasonable grounds for believing the money was theirs, (2) causal link
between accepting the benefit and change of position, (3) change of position in such manner
as to make repetition unjust
- recognised in condictio indebiti and CCDCNS cases
- Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson
Condictio indebiti - correct answer-= claim for return of undue payment
- typically result of an error that it was due to, such error is essential in making transfer
undue and reversible
- error either in fact or in law
- overpayment of a debt, to wrong person, non-existent debt, payment under a void contract
- must be show that the party didnt know the payment was undue, thus made in error
- undue payments made knowingly and with no error, no UE
, - leading case: Morgan Guaranty Trust of NY v Lothian Regional Council
Condictio ob causam finitam - correct answer-- a form of condictio sine causa
- for return of payment which had a legal basis which now ceased to exist
Condictio ob injustam vel turpem causam - correct answer-= for return of payment rendered
for an illegal or immoral purpose
- recovery not allowed where in pari delicto, position of the possessor is stronger
- recovery depends on relative turpitude
Condictio sine causa - correct answer-= for return of payment which D has no legal basis for
retaining against the P
- possibly breach of contract
- where the performance on one side has not been met by any counter-performance by the
time of a breach
- an undue transfer where is no error, but instead compulsion
- Woolwich Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners
- British Oxygen v South of Scotland Electricity Board
Condiction causa data causa non secuta, CCDCNS - correct answer-= for return of payment
rendered for a purpose which failed to materialise
- payment made on the basis of some anticipated return which is now not going to occur
- e.g. engagment rings
- the purpose why the P makes the conferral must be known and accepted as the basis of
the performance by both paties
- particular defence would be that P knew from the beginning that the purpose is nt capable
of fulfilment or prevented the fulfilment
- not applicable to valid contract following breach
Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson - correct answer-- condictio indebiti
- paying the wrong person
- D claimed that he obtained the money in good faith and already used them
- held: liable to repay, negligent when the payment arrived
- for defence of change of position, D is required to show: (a) reasonable ground to believe
the money was his, (b) acting upon the reasonable belief so as to alter his position which
would make repetition unjust
Defences - correct answer-- equity
- change of positions, loss of enrichment
- subsidiarity
- bona fide perception and consumption
- personal bar
- prescrition
Agnew v Fraser - correct answer-- condictio indebiti
- money wasnt due
- receiver has no title, moral or legal, to retain
Basic rule - correct answer-- enrichment of 1 party (defender)
- at the expense of another (pursuer)
- no legal ground to retain the enrichment
- reversing the enrichment must be equitable between the parties
- which remedies need to be selected
- authority in Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) v CIN Properties
- enrichment is justified where is legal ground such as unconditional donation/gift or
performance of valid contract,
Bona fide perception and consumption - correct answer-- posser is generally liable to restore
the thing possessed and its fruits and accessions during his possession
- if identification and exploitation of such fruits, it will usually avoid the liability
Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding - correct answer-- frustration
Change of position, loss of enrichment - correct answer-- party spent, consumed or
otherwise disposed of an enrichment
- therefore is no longer enriched
- may be able to escape liability in part or whole
- requirements: (1) reasonable grounds for believing the money was theirs, (2) causal link
between accepting the benefit and change of position, (3) change of position in such manner
as to make repetition unjust
- recognised in condictio indebiti and CCDCNS cases
- Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson
Condictio indebiti - correct answer-= claim for return of undue payment
- typically result of an error that it was due to, such error is essential in making transfer
undue and reversible
- error either in fact or in law
- overpayment of a debt, to wrong person, non-existent debt, payment under a void contract
- must be show that the party didnt know the payment was undue, thus made in error
- undue payments made knowingly and with no error, no UE
, - leading case: Morgan Guaranty Trust of NY v Lothian Regional Council
Condictio ob causam finitam - correct answer-- a form of condictio sine causa
- for return of payment which had a legal basis which now ceased to exist
Condictio ob injustam vel turpem causam - correct answer-= for return of payment rendered
for an illegal or immoral purpose
- recovery not allowed where in pari delicto, position of the possessor is stronger
- recovery depends on relative turpitude
Condictio sine causa - correct answer-= for return of payment which D has no legal basis for
retaining against the P
- possibly breach of contract
- where the performance on one side has not been met by any counter-performance by the
time of a breach
- an undue transfer where is no error, but instead compulsion
- Woolwich Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners
- British Oxygen v South of Scotland Electricity Board
Condiction causa data causa non secuta, CCDCNS - correct answer-= for return of payment
rendered for a purpose which failed to materialise
- payment made on the basis of some anticipated return which is now not going to occur
- e.g. engagment rings
- the purpose why the P makes the conferral must be known and accepted as the basis of
the performance by both paties
- particular defence would be that P knew from the beginning that the purpose is nt capable
of fulfilment or prevented the fulfilment
- not applicable to valid contract following breach
Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson - correct answer-- condictio indebiti
- paying the wrong person
- D claimed that he obtained the money in good faith and already used them
- held: liable to repay, negligent when the payment arrived
- for defence of change of position, D is required to show: (a) reasonable ground to believe
the money was his, (b) acting upon the reasonable belief so as to alter his position which
would make repetition unjust
Defences - correct answer-- equity
- change of positions, loss of enrichment
- subsidiarity
- bona fide perception and consumption
- personal bar
- prescrition
