Anglo-american Return Of The Interests Of The Contract Without The Effect Of Returning Research

In common law tradition, the law of obligations was basically divided into two branches of Contract and Tort. Since the 20th century, developments in the law, especially the increasing recognition of"Restitution"has served to bring the law of restitution into another branch of the law of obligations, which now assumes equal position with the law of contract and the law of tort. With quasi-contract as the most ancient and significant part of restitution, the law of restitution is the law relating to all claims, quasi-contractual or otherwise, which are founded upon the principle of unjust enrichment. Restitutionary claims can arise where there is neither a contractual obligation which could create a cause of action in breach of contract, nor any legal or equitable wrong which would create a cause of action in tort. Accordingly, in the circumstances in which restitution may be granted in respect of benefits conferred under ineffective contracts, numerous rules has also been created and developed, which is worth of studying and analyzing. This paper introduces and examines the rules relating to the restitutionary claims arising from the circumstances of ineffective contracts.This paper is divided into six sections. Section one gives a brief introduction of the law of restitution and the scope of ineffective contracts. Section two examines the three basic elements of restitutionary claims, including firstly,"the defendant must have been enriched by the receipt of a benefit", secondly,"that benefit must have been gained at the plaintiff's expense"and thirdly,"it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain that benefit". These three elements are closely interrelated. Section three analyzes four important limiting principles which may defeat a restitutionary claim in the circumstances of ineffective contracts. Section four discusses the different rules applied to three distinct types of benefits which are money paid, services rendered and goods supplied. Section five specifically deals with the special rules governing the restitution issues under the circumstances of several most significant ineffective contracts, including contracts discharged through breach, contracts discharged through frustration, contracts void for want of authority, illegal contracts, contracts affected by incapacity and anticipated contracts which do not materialize. Section six, the closing part of this paper, outlines the very limited existing rules specified in current civil laws of China and points out its deficiency, with the hope of providing some reference to constructing Chinese unjust enrichment legal branch, especially in the area of restitutionary claims relating to various ineffective contracts.