The Identification Of The "Lack Of Juridical Reason" For The Unjust Enrichment Law

This thesis mainly studies the problem “lack of legal causes” on the law ofunjust enrichment. The purpose of the dissertation is to set the scope of the law ofunjust enrichment by studying the meaning of the word “cause” in phrase “lack oflegal causes”, in other words, the boundary of the claim of unjust enrichment. Themethods adopted are as follows: concept, historicism and comparisonThis paper can be divided into four chapters.Chapter1talked about the unreasonable identification of “lack of juridicalreason”. Through the discussion of cases and the analysis of the law, the thesis provethat the origin of the problem for the unclearly set boundary of claim of unjustenrichment is that we had not recognized the precise meaning of the phrase “lack ofjuridical reason”, which is an element of the claim.Chapter2investigated the history of how to identify the meaning of “lack oflegal causes” on the law of unjust enrichment. Section1discussed the situationbefore the16century. This section discussed the main types of condictio on Romanlaw and talk bout the identification of “lack of juridical reason” in each type; thenintroduced the emergence of the general rule of unjust enrichment and the expansionof condictio in the Middle ages. The paper discussed the convert from the old actionsto assumpsit action in the Common law. Section2discussed the situation after the16century. The paper introduced the convert from the assumpsit action unjust factor inthe Common law and the inner logic of the convert to the newest theory. In the Civillaw side, the paper discussed the two converts from the Roman law to French law andfrom the French law to German law. The theme behind these converts was thetransformation of the basis of theory how to determine the justice of the juristic acts (from the theory of cause to the theory of will). Then the paper discussed its history,sorts and the decision of “lack of legal causes” in German unjust enrichment law.Chapter3discussed the modern identification of “lack of juridical reason”. Thethesis summarized the three conclusions of the investigates the history of how toidentify the meaning of “lack of legal causes”: firstly, the application of the typetheory; secondly, the non-payment unjust enrichment had result in the notion ofreason to be stretched beyond recognition; lastly, the identification of “lack ofjuridical reason” was always suffered the influence of the law of property. At thefoundation of above, the paper came up with the new method to identify “lack ofjuridical reason”. Firstly, we should replace “lack of juridical reason” with “no legalground”. Then the paper discussed the type of the “no legal ground”. According thenew way, we should ascertain all the legal ground in our civil law at first, we couldnot identify “lack of juridical reason” without this step.Chapter4argued for the practice value of the modern method to identify “lack ofjuridical reason”. This chapter tries to answer the questions raised in chapter1inposition of legislation in our country. Section1discussed the defect of payment aimtheory; this paper advocated the objective reason theory which meant the relationshipof debt. Section2come up to an conclusion that we should not to try to find auniform interpretation to the “lack of juridical reason” of the non-payment unjustenrichment, advocated the method which hold to analyze the exact criterion in everytype, the paper tried do it in the five types of this non-payment unjust enrichment.