Unjust Enrichment, Pursuance of Self-Interest and the Limits of Free Riding

Abstract

The notion of unjust enrichment has, almost since its inception some two thousands years ago, caused innumerable difficulties and has led on numerous occasions to unsatisfactory results. In the words of Lord Dennnig: “This conception is too indefinite to be stated as a principle of law.” Professor Dawson stated, “[I]t is obvious that the adoption of this principle as a ‘rule’ of law would carry us far afield,” and that “once the idea [of prohibiting enrichment through another’s loss] has been formulated as a generalization, it has the peculiar faculty of inducing quite sober citizens to jump right off the dock.” Nevertheless, the Restatement of the Law of Restitution adopted this principle and stated broadly that “[a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” The tentative draft of the Restatement (Second) of Restitution opted for a more concrete statement of the law by providing that the duty to make restitution arises where a benefit was received either through “an infringement of another person’s interest, or of loss

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 134 citations exist upstream.