Unjust Enrichment Flashcards
Unjust enrichment is a…
action for the value of the money, services or property received by the D
P has to establish that…
there was an enrichment on the objective approach
The burden is on the P because they brought the claim, but the D can respond by…
arguing subjective devaluation because the D is responding, the burden is now shifted to them
When was the law of unjust enrichment created?
1991
What was unjust enrichment before it was created?
Quasi Contract and Equitable Analysis
What is the remedy?
Restitution
What was the historical causes of action before the law of unjust enrichment?
Money had and received, money paid, quantum meruit & quantum valebat
What is money had and received?
I paid money to you and I want it back
What is money paid?
Where the P paid the money to a third party in a way that benefits the D and the P wants the money back
What is quantum meruit?
Paying for services. I have don’t something for you, but you haven’t been paid
What is quantum valebat?
Payment for chattels received. Haven’t given you money, but I can give you something and I want money back for it
What is the 4 elements for unjust enrichment?
- Was the D enriched?
- Was the enrichment at the P’s expense?
- Was the enrichment unjust?
- Are there any defences?
If you claim to get back two $50 bank notes, will you win?
No, you will get restitution for the value, not the property (you transferred ownership)
Not the law of property because the P has to say…
You owe me an obligation to give me my money back
What if is a chattel?
You can’t get the object back, but you can get the value back
Can you get interest back?
Yes
Will the subjective argument work in porperty?
No because you transferred ownership so you can only get the value back
If you give property if you thought it was someone else then…
You may have a case of invalid transfer and still the owner of those bank notes, so the property was not transferred
Cases for the second element? (enrichment at the P’s expense)
Portman Building Society Port of Brisbane v ANZ Taylor v Laird Brenner v First Artists Management Ford v Perpetual Trustees Victoria SEMPRA METALS
Facts on Portman Building Society?
The condition of the loan is for residential purposes. Building Society transfers the money to the solicitor to pay the vendor. They discover it is now going to be used as a guest house, so they want their money back. The money was paid in the belief that it would be used for a property that would be for residential purposes only, so it was a mistaken belief. The P’s sue the solicitor because they have the deepest pockets, but they failed because it is not the lawyers money, it is held on trust for the vendor and the equity still belongs to the P’s. The lawyer never benefitted from the money.
Cases that used the change if position defence?
Portman Building Society
What if the payment has gone into trust?
There is no claim becuase the equity still belongs to the P, as seen in Portman Building Society
Cleaning your property without you knowledge, can you then claim payment?
No because the courts will say you have not been enriched as you didn’t want the cleaning done
Why is the 3 situations of free acceptance?
- If you are out, then you don’t need to pay
- You requested the service, then it will be in the law of contract
- You didn’t request the service and if you are at the house when they are painting and do nothing, then you would be liable for unjust enrichment.
What is free acceptance?
Like painting open houses to get money, the D should be barred from denying benefit. Where the D actively encourages P to provide goods or services through words or conduct falling short of an actual request, both the evidence and sound legal policy may prevent her arguing that she did not want what she got. Cleaning my show and instead of stopping it, you ignore it (the acceptance is complied)
Which approach do you take for services?
Objective is the default, you can win if the service continues to have market value
When can the courts use a subjective approach for services?
If other people value it, but the P doesn’t then you can
Case for Services?
Taylor v Laird
Brenner v First Artist Management
Facts on Brenner v First Artist Management
Where a person requests another to do something, it is not unreasonable for the law to conclude that the former sees some benefit in the performance. The objective test would fail, as there is no market value, if the comeback succeeded it would be different. Subjectively, the D valued the services P performed
What approach do you take if you request the benefit?
Then it is subjective, even if there is no objective basis
What are the three views of the first element? (has the D been eniched?
- Yes because there is a factual benefit to the D
- If you both agree then you have a concurrent liability (more than one cause of action available)
- No because the title is yours (you’ve just got your own property)
What do the courts look at when they take an objective approach? for the first element
Did the object that the D receive, have market value? And what was the value?
What do the courts look at when they take a subjective approach? for the first element
What was the benefit to the D?
Facts of SEMPRA METALS?
Paid tax in corporation advance to the IRD (they did have to pay the tax, but not at the time they paid it), it was breach of European law (mistaken payment).. They went to court to received the money back and the interest on it. It was not the D’s fault. The dissenting took at the subjective approach to look at what the D actually gained. The D had to return simple interest, not compound interest
What questions do you asked when you are determining if the D was enriched?
Does the thing that the D received have market value? Then we let the D argue subjective devaluation
When can’t the D argue subjective devaluation?
When the D requested the benefit, free acceptance or incontrovertible benefit
What is the top three incontrovertible benefits?
- Money
- Non-money benefits realised in money
- Non-money benefits when were legally or factually necessary for the D
Facts of Peel v Canada
About incontrovertible benefit. Local authority was ordered to pay for the childcare provided because it was believe by the act. The court never had an obligation, they could sue the children or the government. There was an enrichment, but they failed because they cannot establish that the benefit was not incontrovertible.
