Unjustified enrichment throughout history and the impact of the draft common frame of reference (book VII) in unifying this area

Abstract

The concept of unjust enrichment has a long history as a legal principle, manifesting itself in both common and civil jurisdictions, and consequently with historical and substantive differences arising between these two legal systems. Unjust enrichment denotes a particular type of situation between two persons where one party is enriched in an unjustified manner at the expense of another. When this happens, there is a duty to make restitution for the benefits unfairly received, even if there may be no liability for wrongdoing. Unjust enrichment falls under the area of quasi-contracts in private law. This term paper will analyse the historical background of unjustified enrichment within the different national member states of the European Union. However, the main focus will be on the attempts made by the Draft Common Frame of Reference to try and unify this area of law for the benefit of the acquis communataire of private law. The reason for specifically focusing on unjustified enrichment is because it is not traditionally a core area of European legislative or regulatory interference. However, there has been long-standing dispute as to whether the Member States are in need of a European Civil Code to ensure more cohesion in the legislations and jurisdictions of Member States. The Draft Common Frame of Reference was presented in 2009 by the Study Group on a European Civil Code and the Research Group on EC Private Law (Acquis Group). It is an academic exercise, a draft codifying all European contract law, containing ten books. The relevant book for this term paper is Book VII relating to Unjustified Enrichment. Through converging the historical background of the unjustified enrichment principle with the rules in Book VII of the DCRF, one is attempting to adduce whether this academic intervention is of hindrance or of enhancement to the national legal systems, and whether it solves the problem of this principle which is notorious for being ambiguous as to its exact demarcations within the law.