The Research Of The Concept Of Payment On The Unjust Enrichment

Unjust Enrichment Law is a very important legal system throughout the civil law.But in General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, the system just have one provision of unjust enrichment, and relevant judicial interpretation is only one. Legislation is too simple, and the judiciary don’t have deep understanding.In practice referee process, similar cases will have different opinions. In several cases of the payment unjust enrichment, the judiciary have different views on the concept of payment,and have produced different verdicts.So the paper aims at these problems listed in this paper,and analyze the concept of payment of Unjust Enrichment Law deeply.On the Unjust Enrichment Law, the law of unjust enrichment is an old system,but the view of using the concept of payment to divide it generated late. In the development process of Unjust Enrichment Law, Scholars have proposed many unjust enrichment claims,then use a general provision for the integration of the Unjust Enrichment Law gradually. In the 20th century,Wilburg and Caemmerer put forward non-unified theory,which divide Unjust Enrichment Law into payment unjust enrichment and non-payment unjust enrichment by the concept of payment. This view not only makes the two types of unjust enrichment integrate with other systems on civil law,but also constructs specific types of unjust enrichment. In these regards, payment concept has a very important value in unjust enrichment system.In the field of Obiligation Law,Performance and discharge are similar to the concept of payment. Scholars tend to look at their differences,and make excuses for mutual distinction. fact, Performance、discharge and payment are the same thing excrpt the angle of observation.Scholars have put forward many theories for the legal nature of payment,such as legal action theory、fact action theory and compromise doctrine. Legal action theory still includes contract theory、unilateral action theory and contract theory or unilateral action theory. With so many theories, the paper judges the two main theories view—fact action theory and unilateral action theory,and points out the shortcomings of these two doctrines.Then, This paper argues that the concept of payment should adopt theory of contract,and gives the corresponding reasons.When some scholars use the concept of payment to develop Unjust Enrichment Law, other scholars who support the unified theory criticize the concept of payment which has a tendengcy to Concept of Law. German Supreme Court sometimes changes its standpoints, the concept of payment is faced with dilemma. The paper thinks that we should look for answers from German civil law methodology to solve the dilemma. Although the Concept of Law has been criticized by scholars since the 20th century, we also know that concept system created by Concept of Law helps to establish the legal system and apply the law,which helps maintain the stability of the law. At the same time, we recognize the concept of logical operations sometimes do not meet the goals of social justice and the overall value of the case.So,Two different law schools have proposed the corresponding solution to eliminate the shortcomings. However, the views proposed by the two schools do not get support from profound theoretical tools and form a stable and reliable evaluation criteria.This paper argues that the view put forward by the two schools should be rationalized through economic theory.When the concept of logic operation is not conducive to a fair case, we can use the trust protection principles to deal with specific cases.In some specific areas, we can even use trust protection principles to develop the specific legal system. However, the use of trust protection principles and formation of the corresponding system must be explained by the theory of economic analysis, which is needed to maintain the stability of the law.