Week 11: Unjustified Enrichment Flashcards
What are the three starting steps of UE?
- enrichment of defender
- no clear ground for retention
- gained at the expense of the pursuer, loss and causation follow
What is enrichment?
- Addition of a new asset to a person’s wealth
- Adding value to person’s already existing asset
- preserving another’s asset which would’ve otherwise have been lost or reduced in value, saving the other the expense involved
- performance of an obligation lying upon another, saving that other the expense of performance
Receipt or acquisition of money?
Morgan Guaranty Trust v Lothian Regional Council
Contract was void, LRC has money and no legal basis to have it. UE.
Receipt or acquisition of other property?
Findlay v Munro
M got ox by mistake, but ate it anyway. UE, payment for saving on food
Improvement of another’s property
Newton v Newton
H bought house in Wifes name. W given house on divorce, H had improved house a lot. UE.
Unauthorised use of another’s property
Jarvis v Manson
Jeweller bought ring and sold on after refurbishing for £10. Had been stolen, liable to pay true owner their enrichment, 5.50, as they were in good faith.
What are the three situations where unjustified enrichment is recoverable?
- Transfer - morgan and munro
- Imposition - newton
- Enrichment - jarvis
How does transfer work?
No legal grounds for retention, then show one of the condictiones is applicable.
What are the condictiones?
Condictio indebiti
Condictio causa data causa non secuta
What indebiti?
Error that transfer was due by transferor because of some legal obligation owed to transferee. Error must be about liability and to who it is owned.
What is causa data causa non secuta
something transferred for a future purpose which failed to materialise.
Cases of indebiti?
Morgan Guaranty v Lothian Regional Council
Payment made under void contract not due: error of law
Bank of New York v North British Steel Group
Paying wrong person, error as no liability to person. Recoverable.
Cases of not indebiti?
Scanlon v Scanlon
W paid car payments for M. No error about her liability.
Cases of causa data causa non secuta
Shilliday v Smith
Cohabitants, w makes improvements. She could recover causa data… handed over money for purpose.
Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding
Pre-payment frustrated by outbreak of war returnable. Pre-payments for purpose that couldn’t be fulfilled.
What is imposition?
Classic case is unauthorised improvements of another’s property
What are the rules
- Impoverished person in good faith possession of property without knowledge of lack of right
- Worked under error, usually that it was his
- Recovery without error if some other ground making it UE as per Shill v Smith
Potentially transfers…
What about performance of anothers obligation?
If P pays C’s debt to D, then P has enrichment claim against C. Even with full knowledge of facts. Makes no difference to C’s basic position.
Cases?
Lawrence Building v Lanarkshire CC
Recompense claim allowed, dispute who was required to connect sewers but builders did anyway.
Varney v Burgh of Lanark
Same situation, not recoverable. Subsidiarity claim, had other options they could’ve taken.
What is taking?
Normally the enrichment is the gain made from the use rather than the property used. Moveable goods onto third party difficult.
Defences?
Change of position
RBS v Watt: W cashed E’s fake cheque. Claimed no longer had the money, rejected as negligent and order for repetition not just.
Another?
Subsidiary, as per Varney. Courtney’s Exrs v Campbell, not allowed EU since subsidiary due to statutory remedy. Usually for imposition, not transfer, which this case was…
What are the three remedies?
- Repetition - repayment of money
- Restitution - restoration of tangible property or equivalent
- Recompense - payment for any other form of enrichment
What is used in transfer?
Repetition or restitution
Imposition and taking?
Recompense
What happens in transfer where subject matter isn’t money?
Recovery of recipient’s enrichment, rather than the value of the previously transferred property as per Findlay v Munro
Same as improvement cases - addition to the value of the defender, not cost of service
Exceptions?
Faulds v Townsend: Bought a horse at night to make medicine. Horse stolen, chemist liable for full value of horse, not just enrichment, as lack of due care in checking antecedents of the horse.
Where they become owner of property used?
Oliver & Boyd v The Marr Typefounding
Employees stole type which ended up with MT, in good faith. MT melted down type and resold. Liable to OB for full value. Specifcators
Second case?
IBC v Ferguson
bought refined cotton seed oil in good faith, and turned it into lard, which was then resold at a profit. But the party from whom the oil had been purchased had not had good title, and IBC, the true owners, sued FS as specificators for the full value of the oil. Held FS were liable for the full value of the oil.
