The Definition Of "Lack Of Legal Justification" In Payment Unjust Enrichment

What is the definition of “lack of legal justification” in payment unjust enrichment? Thedefinition standards are not that clear in judicial practice, so there always have been twodifferent theories trying to answer the question. The non-unionism theory holds that unjustenrichment should be classified to two types: the payment unjust enrichment and thenon-payment unjust enrichment, and each type has its own definition of “lack of legaljustification”. By using the method of classification and the concept of “payment”, judges canfind out the proper subject of legal relation much more easily, especially in payment unjustenrichment involving three parties, then decide if the transfer of property lack legaljustification or not through “the purpose of payment”.The requirement of “lack of legal justification” in payment unjust enrichment is notequal to the causality requirement, they play quite different roles in constitution of civilresponsibility of payment unjust enrichment. The latter decide which party has the claim rightof returning unjustified enrichment and which party is responsible for it. Only if we define thescope of the parties clearly, can we use the requirement of “lack of legal justification” to helpus to decide if the payment between the parties lack purpose and if unjust enrichment isfinally established or not. Thus compare to The requirement of “lack of legal justification”,judges should firstly take causality requirement into account, causality requirement is not aninevitable outcome deduced by the requirement of “lack of legal justification”. Combining therelated articles with the real case, this paper is divided into four parts to study the definition of“lack of legal justification” in payment unjust enrichment.The first part brings up the core topic “the definition of ‘lack of legal justification’ inpayment unjust enrichment”,by analyzing the problems of our unjust enrichment existing inthe theory and practice.The second part introduces the main theories of the definition of “lack of legaljustification” in unjust enrichment, and compares both their advantages and disadvantageswith each other. Then the paper gives the reasons why it agrees with the non-unionism theory.The third part which is the most important one in the paper, holds the opinion that inorder to make clear the definition of “lack of legal justification” in payment unjust enrichmentwe should classify two types of unjust enrichment and start with the concept of “payment”. By defining the scope of the parties, we can further decide if there is a payment relationshipbetween the involved parties measuring with the purpose of the payment. Besides the paperdistinguishes the requirement of “lack of legal justification” from the causality requirement,and holds the view that the two requirements play distinct roles in deciding whether thepayment unjust enrichment is established.The final part concludes that the definition of “lack of legal justification” in paymentunjust enrichment can be so clear by classifying two types of unjust enrichment and using theconcept of “payment” and “the purpose of the payment”, that judges will not be confused bylegal relations between the parties easily and judge such cases without the abstract concept of“justice” and “right”.