Study On The Legal Effects Of Unjust Enrichment

The legal effects of unjust enrichment have always been neglected in doctrine and legislation,Regarding the constituent elements of unjust enrichment,there are mainly two laws:Article 92 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China,Article 122 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China Clauses,The content of the return is only a rough and simple stipulation of the original and its interest in Article 131 of the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China".The imperfections and confusion in the legislation on unjust enrichment have directly led to judicial practice,and the courts do not have an accurate and reasonable basis for determining the scope and content of improper returns between the parties.Therefore,determining the content and scope of unjust enrichment has important theoretical and practical significance.The content of the return of unjust enrichment is,in its literal meaning,the benefit obtained because it has no legal basis.This kind of interest is an interest in an abstract sense,which mainly refers to the increase in the total amount of property of the recipient due to unjust enrichment of the legal relationship.Article 131 of the"Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China" defines the return content as the original and its yield is not enough to summarize this increase in property.As for the analysis of benefits,it should include the benefits obtained and other benefits obtained based on the benefits.These two "specific" benefits constitute the content of an unjust enrichment.As far as the return method is concerned,the reduction should be returned in principle,and in exceptional cases the corresponding amount can be returned.When the benefit received does not exist,the subjective state of the recipient when receiving the benefit should be considered.Chinese law does not distinguish the difference in the scope of return under different subjective conditions of improperly beneficial persons.In a general sense,the general law of debt and the function of the system of unjust enrichment require a distinction between the parties'scope of return under different subjective states.The logic of considering the subjective state of the recipient is the difference in the degree of trust and expectations of the recipient.The law should protect the bona fide recipient's trust and expectation of the process and result of obtaining the benefit.When the benefit does not exist,he should not be forced to assume the responsibility of returning it,only within the scope of existing benefits.The malicious recipient knows that there is no legal reason to obtain the benefit,and when the benefit does not exist,it should also increase its responsibility to return the benefit.If damage is caused,the loss should also be compensated.In the case where the bona fide recipient transfers the undue interest to a third party without compensation,there is no improperly beneficial relationship between the in jured person and the third party.If the recipient in good faith is exempted from the responsibility to return the benefit in the absence of goodwill and does not give the injured person the right to claim benefits,it will inevitably cause de facto unfairness.In order to balance the interests of all parties,the right of the injured person to request an improper interest from a third party should be granted under certain conditions.In order to better solve the problem of the return of improper profits in practice,the scope of the return of improper profits should be established at the legislative level.In addition to distinguishing the scope of return under different subjective conditions of recipients,the specific conditions and scope of third parties' return of improper benefits should also be clarified.