On The Scope Of Return Of Unjust Enrichment

The emphasis of academic research on unjust enrichment has always been its constituentelements,but ignored aspects of its legal effects.The practice of unjust enrichmentclaimelements of the judicial decisions are of hundreds and thousands, with wide coverage,and the scope of return of unjust enrichment decisions are so narrow.Of course, this is not tosay that research on the scope of return of unjust enrichment is of no value, but because thelegislation of our country is not that perfect and leads to judicial confusion. Research on thescope of return of unjust enrichment,can not only facilitate the removal of the beneficiary ofno legal reason by benefit with practical value, but also can absorb and learn from the twolegal systems on the unjust enrichment,whose provisions are more superior.This paperdiscusses this issue mainly by means of comparative research, historical research and methodsof hermeneutics.In this paper, by analyzing three core case about the scope of return of unjust enrichmentand then put forward questions; then uses the methods of comparison,to compare theprovisions on the scope of return of unjust enrichment in the two law systems, analysis thequestions raising from the case.The full text is divided into four parts.The first part introducesthe questions.The second part mainly analyzes the provisions on the scope of return of unjustenrichment in civil law. The civil law on unjust enrichment mainly ruled in two aspects, thatis,the initial return range and expansion of the scope of restitution.For unjust enrichment totake delivery of the goodwill of the people, only to return the existing interests to the initialresponsibility; and for the malicious return obligation,who has known or later knows thebenefits are without legal reasons,the existing interests, acceptance of additional interests,together with the payment, if the creditor bears damages, the malicious people must bear theresponsibility of returning compensation and the expansion.The third part through theanalysis of the scope of restitution of unjust enrichment of the common law, determination ofthe interests and the special relief channel for our country to build the system of unjustenrichment is a valuable reference.Firstly, in the identification of interests, at the same timein the premise of recognizing the value of subjectivity,granted to the parties the burden ofproof to prove suffered interests of the existence or non-existence of rights, and allowed todefend the right to freedom of choice and circumstances change, and ultimately determinedby the amount of benefit.Secondly, the common law Fiction Instant Trust and Circle House holdsFund special return remedies,duplicate payments and non-secured creditors reliefcompared to the civil law has the advantages that nothing can compare.In the fourth part ofthe article, through ana lysing the existing norms of our country about the scope of return ofunjust enrichment, in the premise of the two law systems about unjust enrichment range ofaspects of the scientific system,at the same to respond to the case accounted above.