Analysis On The Distributional Genres Of Burden Of Proof For Unjust Enrichment

In recent years, with the increasing of lawsuits of unjust enrichment, types of unjust enrichment is becoming more and more complicated, which has brought a big problem to judicial practice. And if the court is careless, the judgment will most probably be unjust or even arouses the problems like abuse of lawsuits of unjust enrichment for litigation fraud. The reasons why it happens like this is that the allocation of constitutive requirements of burden of proof for non-legal bases is not explicit. And even worse, it arouses the advocate of allowing no flexibility. All burden of proof for non-legal bases shall be carried by the claimant- the plaintiff in lawsuits of unjust enrichment.Because lawsuits of unjust enrichment is just a general kind, the general theory of burden of proof could be applied to them too. So this essay will start with the general theory of burden of proof to analyze and discuss the theory of allocation for burden of proof about unjust enrichment, including the abandoned “theory of burdened by the defendant”, the Tong said “theory of burdened by the plaintiff”, and then put forward “theory of the classification of burden”. This essay also combines legal provisions of our country to conclude the general rules of the distribution of burden of proof. These general rules conclude elements as the following: general theory of legal requirements, but with consideration of the particularities of individual cases, abiding by the equity principle and principle of honesty and credibility, considering the difficulties of proving, the distance between the evidences, applying judges appropriate discretionary power.The burden of proof in non-legal bases legal requirements can not be allocated simply by rules, because the types of unjust enrichment are complex and manifold, for which we should make a difference between them. According to the theory of non-unification in unjust enrichment, it can be divided in to two genres: first is deliverable unjust enrichment and the second is non-deliverable unjust enrichment. And for the first, it concludes three types, no paying purpose from the start, no paying purpose afterwards, paying purpose can not be achieved. And for the second, it can also be classified into many types, but it can mainly divided into three genres according to reasons to make problems happened, unjust enrichment happened because of the behavior, the legal provisions and the incidents. This essay firstly classifies the types of unjust enrichment, and next analyzes combining the rule for distribution of burden of proof in our country, and finally establishes the rules of allocation for non-legal bases burden of proof.Any civil lawsuits pursues just judgments no matter in what situations. In lawsuits of unjust enrichment, the result of the judgment will affect the judicial authority if it is not fair. And if there is reasonable allocation of constitutive requirements of non-legal bases, the result of judgment will naturally be fair to protect parties benefit, and maintain the judicial authority. It is just because of this, that I know my conclusion may not make a positive influence to our country’s judicial practice, it will at least provide a research orientation.