|
CONTENTS UNIT
1. AN INTRODUCTION TO LAWS UNIT
3. CHALLENGES OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM UNIT
7.CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UNIT
12. A LAW FIRM STRUCTURE AND PRACTISE UNIT
14. IMPRISONMENT: RETRIBUTION OR REHIBILITATION |
UNIT 8. UNJUST ENRICHMENT Part 1 WHAT IS UNJUST ENRICHMENT? «Unjust enrichment» may occur
any time one party profits at the expense of another party. While state laws
may vary, unjust enrichment usually refers to benefits that are received
passively, accidentally, or by mistake. In general, unjust enrichment is
considered to be unfair, and laws require a party that has been unjustly
enriched to pay restitution to the other party. For example, suppose a person enters into a
contract with an auto body shop to paint two of their cars. Suppose that the
auto shop completed the painting of one car, but couldn’t finish the second
car. Here, the owner of the cars will be unjustly enriched if they don’t pay
for the paint job of the first car. Likewise, the shop will be unjustly
enriched if they retain payment for two paint jobs, but only complete one.
While the shop may be in breach for not finishing the second car, they are
still entitled to payment for the work they have completed on the first car. Where Does Unjust Enrichment Commonly Occur? Unjust enrichment most frequently arises in
breach of contract lawsuits. A common contract situation involving unjust
enrichment is where incomplete services are not paid for. Another common
example of unjust enrichment in contracts is where one party receives
property or goods in a way that is considered unfair. Unjust enrichment can
also occur in situations beside a contract claim, such as those involving
personal injuries or criminal violations. Specifically to contracts, there are methods
for recovery in order to prevent unjust enrichment of one party. The most
common equitable remedy for unjust enrichment is restitution, which is
monetary payment for the benefit that was wrongfully obtained by the other
party. What Are the Differences between Restitution
and Compensation? ·
Restitution
is the amount gained by the enriched party. A party that is unjustly enriched
almost always has to pay restitution to the other party ·
Compensation,
on the other hand, is based on how much the aggrieved party lost, not by how
much the enriched party gained ·
Additionally,
restitution may involve a requirement that the enriched party return a
specific item that they had gained. Compensation, however, might require an
enriched party to pay the other party for the value of the property This difference is important, because it can
affect the overall amount that needs to be paid. Compensation is usually
reserved for standard breach of contract cases that don’t involve unjust
enrichment. Do I Need a Lawyer If I Have a Dispute
Involving Unjust Enrichment? Unjust enrichment is a common issue when it
comes to breach of contract claims. You should contact a lawyer if you a
contract dispute where unjust enrichment may be involved. Your lawyer can go
over the laws in your area with you to help you obtain the appropriate
remedy. Or, if another party is claiming unjust enrichment against you, your
lawyer can represent you in court during a lawsuit. What Is Unjust Enrichment? «Unjust
enrichment» may occur any time one party profits at
the expense of another party. While state laws may vary, unjust enrichment
usually refers to benefits that are received passively, accidentally, or by
mistake. In general, unjust enrichment is considered to be unfair, and laws
require a party that has been unjustly enriched to pay restitution to the
other party. For example, suppose a person enters into a contract with an
auto body shop to paint two of their cars. Suppose that the auto shop
completed the painting of one car, but couldn’t finish the second car. Here,
the owner of the cars will be unjustly enriched if they don’t pay for the
paint job of the first car. Likewise, the shop will be unjustly enriched if
they retain payment for two paint jobs, but only complete one. While the shop
may be in breach for not finishing the second car, they are still entitled to
payment for the work they have completed on the first car. Where Does Unjust
Enrichment Commonly Occur? Unjust enrichment most frequently arises in breach
of contract lawsuits. A common contract situation involving unjust enrichment
is where incomplete services are not paid for. Another common example of
unjust enrichment in contracts is where one party receives property or goods
in a way that is considered unfair. Unjust enrichment can also occur in
situations beside a contract claim, such as those involving personal injuries
or criminal violations. Specifically to contracts, there are methods for
recovery in order to prevent unjust enrichment of one party. The most common
equitable remedy for unjust enrichment is restitution, which is monetary payment
for the benefit that was wrongfully obtained by the other party. What Are the
Differences between Restitution and Compensation? Restitution is the amount
gained by the enriched party. A party that is unjustly enriched almost always
has to pay restitution to the other party Compensation, on the other hand, is
based on how much the aggrieved party lost, not by how much the enriched
party gained Additionally, restitution may involve a requirement that the
enriched party return a specific item that they had gained. Compensation,
however, might require an enriched party to pay the other party for the value
of the property This difference is important, because it can affect the
overall amount that needs to be paid. Compensation is usually reserved for
standard breach of contract cases that don’t involve unjust enrichment. Do I
Need a Lawyer If I Have a Dispute Involving Unjust Enrichment? Unjust
enrichment is a common issue when it comes to breach of contract claims. You
should contact a lawyer if you a contract dispute where unjust enrichment may
be involved. Your lawyer can go over the laws in your area with you to help
you obtain the appropriate remedy. Or, if another party is claiming unjust
enrichment against you, your lawyer can represent you in court during a
lawsuit. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
Unjust enrichment 1)________
occurs in situations involving a breach of contract. It commonly occurs when one party begins 2)________ goods or services with the expectation of being
paid, only to discover later on that the other party refuses to 3)________
for the goods. For example, suppose that a property owner
hires a contract to install windows in their home. Next, 4)________
that the contract was terminated prematurely due to a 5)________, and only
half of the windows were installed.
Then suppose that the property owner refuses to pay for the 6)________ that was partially completed. This could be considered unjust enrichment– the
property owner was «unjustly enriched» because they 7)________
benefits from the contractor, i.e., half of the windows. In this example, the court would probably
require the property owner to 8)________ the
contractor with payment for the amount work that was completed. Unjust enrichment can therefore occur in a
wide variety of circumstances. Anytime
one party stands to gain unfairly from another 9)________,
it may lead to an unjust enrichment claim. In particular, the 10)________
will focus on the question of whether the enrichment was unfair or unjust. In
most cases, if the 11)________ benefited at the
expense of the 12)________, it is likely that the enrichment was unjust. On the other hand, if the plaintiff also
received a benefit in 13)________, then the
enrichment might not be considered unjust. Finally, some 14)________
require that the defendant be aware that they are receiving an unjust
enrichment; that is, they must be aware that they are receiving a benefit
without having to pay for it. A main characteristic of unjust enrichment
is that only one party is receiving benefits at the 15)________
of the other. With regards to charity,
it is true that the party receiving the charity is receiving benefits from
the donating party. However, in most
cases, persons who contribute to a charity are also receiving benefits in
return, such as tax deductions or write-offs. Also, with a charitable 16)________,
the party making the contributions is fully aware that they are contributing
their funds without 17)________ receiving goods or services in return. In other words, they have consented to the
particular donation 18)________. On the other hand, unjust enrichment usually
occurs precisely because one party has stepped outside the boundaries that
they have consented to in a contract. Proving unjust enrichment in court can be a 19)________ difficult task.
Unjust enrichment claims can often 20)________
many unique factors and circumstances, and so courts usually handle them on a
case-by-case basis. Thus, you may wish
to hire a lawyer for legal 21)________ if you are
involved in an unjust enrichment claim.
Your lawyer can help represent you in court and can provide 22)________ according to the specific laws in your
area. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. В юридической литературе и судебной практике существуют различные
представления относительно понятия «ошибка судебного правоприменения».
В широком смысле любая ошибка суда – это судебная ошибка. Однако более
распространено толкование понятия судебной ошибки в узком смысле: как
осуждение невиновного. Другими словами, наиболее распространенным пониманием
термина «судебная ошибка», является результат неправильно вынесенного по делу
решения. Под судебной ошибкой в литературе понимает любые непреднамеренные
нарушения закона, недостатки, допущенные при возбуждении и расследовании
уголовных дел, всякую неправильность в процессуальной деятельности, в том
числе и в мыслительном процессе компетентного лица, носителя соответствующих
прав и обязанностей. Для понятия судебной ошибки характерны три момента: они представляют
собой нарушения юридических норм и свидетельствуют об отклонениях от целевых
установок гражданского судопроизводства; их допускают суды и судьи, управомоченные рассматривать и разрешать гражданские
дела, пересматривать решения, определения, приказы и постановления; все
ошибки могут быть устранены правовыми средствами в гражданско-процессуальном
порядке. Судебная ошибка по гражданскому делу есть не что иное, как несовпадение
результата процессуальной деятельности суда с целевыми установками
судопроизводства, закрепленными в нормах гражданско-процессуального права.
Деятельность бывает неправильной потому, что не соответствует определенным
целям и задачам. Судебная ошибка – это, прежде всего, не соответствующая целям
и задачам правосудия деятельность судьи либо последствия такого действия. В
этой связи не может не возникнуть вопрос о целевых установках
судопроизводства. Для определения целенаправленности используют термины «задачи»
и «цели», различая цели, достигаемые в судебном разбирательстве, и те,
достижению которых судопроизводство способствует. В качестве задач выступают
правильное и быстрое рассмотрение и разрешение дела. Специфика целей
правосудия заключается в том, что они нормативно установлены, обращены к суду
и подлежат реализации при рассмотрении и разрешении конкретных дел.
Невыполнение указаний закона, установившего цели, неправомерно и служит
основанием для применения соответствующих процессуальных санкций. Part 2 THE
CONCEPTS OF UNJUST AND UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT The law of «Unjustified» and «Unjust» enrichment shows an inclination
towards the dual-pillar approach of strict (i.e. condictio)
and lenient (i.e. versio-claim) legal principle
respectively that was followed under the Roman law, which influenced modern
civilian jurisdictions including English law. Where the benefit conferred consists of use of money the enrichment
enquiry is uncontroversial and straightforward as it is the most obvious
example of enrichment. If a person receives £1000 he cannot deny that the
value of benefit is £1000. The problems in enrichment cases generally become
apparent from the benefits other than the receipt of money. In BP Exploration Co (Lybia) Ltd v. Hunt (no
2), a farm-in agreement for the development of an oil concession, by means of
frustration became unenforceable. Robert Goff J,
points out the contrast between awards of restitution where benefit conferred
by the plaintiff does and does not consists of a payment of money. Unlike the
benefits that take the form of a money payment, the restitution of the
benefits such as goods and services is more complex. For instance, where the
benefit consists of a payment of money, the loss suffered by the plaintiff is
generally equivalent to the defendant’s gain, which can be easily restored.
On the other hand, the goods and services cannot be restored specially when
they have not been requested by the defendant or have been consumed or
transferred. Moreover, the value of the resulting benefit to the recipient
sometimes makes it difficult to equate it with the plaintiff’s loss (since
different people value things differently). However, restitution is granted
where the defendant has been incontrovertibly benefited. In Sempra Metals Ltd v HM Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the aspects
of an award of compound interest as a restitutionary
remedy was developed and clarified, in respect of advanced corporation tax
paid under the mistake of law. According to Lord Hope, in measuring the value
of benefit i.e. measuring the defendant’s gain in order to achieve
restitution the steps involved is one of subtraction and not compensation. On the other hand, in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v
Islington London BC, the claim involved restitution for the payment of money
under a void interest rate swap transaction. The court in deciding the personal
claim held that it lacked jurisdiction in equity to grant compound interest. Where the benefit conferred does not consists of money, the material
worth of the defendant’s benefit remains the basis in evaluating an award of
restitution as the defendant’s enrichment in such cases would rarely be equal
to the plaintiff’s expense. To be precise, in assessing restitution awards
and to measure the enrichment, it is the defendant’s gain that is ascertained
rather than the claimant’s loss by the means of objective and subjective
evaluation. In Benedetti v Sawiris, the court recognized
the fact that the agreement between the parties ceased to exist. As a result,
remuneration awarded to the claimant for the services rendered was valued in
an objective manner that is to say on a market value basis. Besides Etherton LJ in his proposition pointed out the relevance
and presence of conditions in restitutionary cases
which increases or decreases the objective value of the benefit to the
defendant or a person in similar position. Under the objective test of enrichment a benefit is valued in an
objective manner i.e. obtaining the benefit’s value in the market at large
regardless of the value the benefit has to the defendant. This objective
value established remains the value of the benefit to the defendant unless
the defendant argues and expresses to rely on subjective devaluation. In Exall v Partridge, the plaintiff in order
to redeem his carriage and to relieve himself from the sufferings, paid the
rent to the landlord for which the defendants were bound by their covenants.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s action against the defendants succeeded for money
paid as it was considered to be a compulsory payment. Moreover, in the
present case, under the circumstances of the fiction of implied contract,
there was an existence of a promise by the defendants to repay the plaintiff. In Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd, the company accepted the services
rendered by the plaintiff. It was found that if the plaintiff did not perform
the services, the company certainly would have hired some agent to perform
those services. Hence, the plaintiff, on the basis of quantum meruit, succeeded in claiming the remuneration from the
company for the work done regardless of the fact that he failed to obtain his
qualification share within two months. This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you
with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our
professional law writers. Under the subjective test of enrichment, defendant is authorized to
show his personal characteristics to discover whether the benefit conferred
is less than the ordinary market value regardless of the fact that the
benefit has a market value i.e. defendant had been objectively benefited.
Hence, under the subjective test of enrichment the actual value the benefit
has to the defendant is identified and valued. Under subjective devaluation, it is irrelevant in the case of
particular individual that other people choose to have the benefit or create
a demand for it. As a matter of fact, the rationale of subjective devaluation
lies in establishing whether the defendant desired or wished for the benefit.
In Boulton v Jones, even though the
defendant was objectively benefited, the plaintiff’s claim to recover the
price of the pipe failed because of the lack of contract between the parties.
Even the restitutionary remedies could not be
invoked; as the defendant did not value the pipe i.e. he subjectively
devalued the benefit. Since the claimant’s predecessor in title owed money to
the defendant, enrichment could not be established. In Exall v Partridge, the fiction of implied
contract compelled the defendants to repay in spite of the defendants
assertion on subjective devaluation. Exceptions to the Subjective Devaluation In order to overpower the defendant’s argument to rely on subjective
devaluation, the claimant has the following specified ways, which acts as its
exceptions. In Taylor v Motability Finance Ltd, Cooke J
in rejecting the claimant’s argument that he was entitled to a bonus of
£375,000, in settling an insurance claim, pointed out the historical
evolution of remedies in restitution stating that it is available when there
is no effective or absence of contract between the parties. Hence, where a party
performs a contract or where the things that are done amounts to a breach of
contract, the remedies in restitution have no effect, as there are remedies
available in the terms of contract. In other words, in cases like the
present, restitution cannot be granted, where contractual remedies or damages
could be obtained at law to compensate the claimant for any loss suffered.
Moreover, in the present case, Cooke J was of the opinion that restitution in
excess of contractual entitlement should not be granted. As a consequence of this judicial decision, it can be inferred that
restitution comes into play in situations where the contractual entitlements
are silent. As a further matter, law recognizes certain categories of enrichment
cases, where there is no liability in contract or tort but there has been an
unjust enrichment of a party, as the law of restitution provides remedies in
particular situations where unjust enrichment is established. For instance,
an award by way of quantum meruit acts as a remedy
when services are provided in the absence of an effective agreement or
contract to ascertain the value of the services rendered. When the benefit is realized in money or found to be clear and obvious
to the defendant it is considered as incontrovertibly beneficial. The
principle works as an element in establishing enrichment of the defendant. P.
Birks and Goff & Jones advance two different views in this context.
According to Birks narrow view only those benefits that can be realized in
money are considered as incontrovertibly beneficial, whereas Goff and Jones
considers some of the circumstances of an individual as they also includes
improvements to land or chattels as incontrovertibly beneficial without
taking into account the defendant’s intention in selling them. No one would ever regard money as a non-beneficial commodity. It is a
known fact that money is a universal medium of exchange and its receipt
always regards a person as enriched. Hence, the enrichment enquiry is
uncontroversial. If the action of receiving a thing other than money leaves no doubt or
unambiguously establishes enrichment of a person, the person is incontrovertibly
benefited. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
«As regards the 1)__________ of the
enrichment, the use of money is in itself a non-money benefit which has to
pass the tests applied to other non-money benefits». Unlike the 2)__________ that consist of goods or services, the
enrichment inquiry generally remains satisfied and undisputed where the
claimant pays a sum of money under a mistake to the defendant as 3)__________
is always regarded as 4)__________. Therefore, the basic issue remains the
crucial difference between benefits (goods or services) and money, as the 5)__________ may be subjectively devalued. In this answer,
the tests applied to the benefits conferred will be examined considering the
fact that the evaluation of enrichment 6)__________
regards the use of money as a non-money benefit in itself that has to undergo
the same tests applied to other non-monetary benefits. The concept of unjust enrichment was coined into English law in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd.
The 7)__________ behind the law of restitution lies
in reversing the defendant’s unjust enrichment or unjust benefit that
originated at the claimant’s 8)__________, while retaining the benefit acts
in representing wrongfulness of one’s behavior. Restitution in its response 9)__________ and treats the cause of
action based on unjust enrichment (i.e. defendant’s enrichment at the
claimant’s expense such as payments made by mistake, payments for
consideration that fails) and 10)__________ (i.e. defendant’s wrong against
the claimant such as breach of contract, tort or fiduciary duty) as different
11)__________ of the law of restitution. This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to 12)__________ you with your studies. This is not an 13)__________ of the work written by our professional law
writers. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. Согласно ст. 46
Конституции РФ каждому гарантируется судебная защита его прав и свобод. В юридической
литературе вопрос о понятии и причинах судебной ошибки является
дискуссионным. Так, Н.Н. Вопленко
правоприменительную (т.е. в том числе и судебную) ошибку понимал как «противоречащий
нормам материального или процессуального права и не достигающий истинных
целей правового регулирования результат властной деятельности специальных
субъектов правоприменения, который квалифицируется
в качестве ошибочного компетентным органом в особом акте». Е.В. Леонтьев, отмечая
отсутствие единства в подходах к определению судебной ошибки и предлагая
отнести ее к сфере интеллектуальной деятельности судьи, признает, что
судебная ошибка является «одним из препятствий, лежащих на пути достижения
целей гражданского судопроизводства, закрепленных в ст. 2 ГПК РФ». Тем не менее, очевидно,
что независимо от причин, вызвавших судебную ошибку, это всегда отрицательный
результат, противоправное явление. Судебная ошибка – неправильное
поведение или суждение суда, выразившееся в нарушении норм материального или
процессуального права, в результате
которого было нарушено право участников гражданского судопроизводства на
судебную защиту. Part 3 According to McDonald v Coys of Kensington,
if it is established that the goods are incontrovertibly beneficial and the
defendant instead of returning it, decides to retain readily returnable goods
(which according to Mance LJ also is a distinct
category of enrichment) then he must pay the reasonably measured value of
damages of another’s chattel as there is no doubt in establishing enrichment. This essay has been submitted to us by a student in order to help you
with your studies. This is not an example of the work written by our
professional law writers. The defendant is regarded as incontrovertibly benefited in cases where
he receives a benefit of a nature that prevents him from spending on some
factually and lawfully necessary expenditure. Exall
v Partridge could be seen as an example where the plaintiff’s act prevented
the defendants to incur lawfully necessary expenditure, which they would have
become subjected to anyways. In Rowe v Vale of White Horse DC, the issue involved a question of
private law i.e. determining the authority’s demand for the payment in
arrears of sewerage services rendered under the principles of law of
restitution, as no contractual relationship existed. The claim was examined
as preventing the necessary expenditure for which the other users may face
the consequences of higher charges. But, the Council’s cause of action
against Rowe failed because of the absence of an essential element i.e. free
acceptance acting as an unjust factor. Hence, claim in restitution could not
be granted. Keeping in mind the autonomy of the defendant, the fact that the
benefit could be realized in money infers that the defendant has been
enriched. In Greenwood v Bennett, there was a mistakenly rendered benefit in
kind, in improving the car by Harper in good faith without the knowledge of
the defect in title. Court in deciding the interpleaded proceeding prevented
the unjust enrichment at his expense and allowed him to regain the value of
the repairs done. In the present case, the belief that he had title to the
car acted as an unjust factor. If the defendant is found acting contrary to his obligation of
rejecting a benefit, where he knew that the claimant had no intention to
confer the benefit gratuitously or where he had the ability to reject the
benefit, it is regarded that he has freely accepted the benefit. The doctrine
has evolved and has developed from a simple to a more complex form since its
introduction to the law of restitution by Goff and Jones. In Leigh v Dickinson, the defendant failed in his claim to secure the
money spent by him in repairing the plaintiff’s house regardless of the fact
that the plaintiff was objectively benefited. The circumstances of the case
indicated that the recipient was given no choice i.e. whether to adopt or
decline the benefit. Hence, on the basis of subjective devaluation she could
not be held liable. In deciding the case, Brett MR, pointed out the intrinsic
nature of the concept of free acceptance. Prominence should be given to the
person’s choice to adopt or decline a benefit, and then if he chooses to
adopt the benefit restitution must be granted to the other party. On the
other hand, if he chooses to decline a benefit, the money spent by the other
party must not be repaid. In Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic AFC Ltd, the issue was related to the
policing service at a football stadium. The defendant was rendered with some
extra policing services, which according to him was unnecessary and he made
it clear that contractually he was not entitled to pay for the extra services
provided. Morritt LJ, being in the majority held
that an award of restitution could not be granted on the basis of unjust
enrichment, as there was no unjust factor. Moreover, he accepted the test of
free acceptance as a valid test in establishing enrichment. However, the
claim was rejected on the facts of the case, where the defendant had no
opportunity to reject the extra policing services. The circumstances of the
case indicated that the defendant was given no choice, as he had no
opportunity to reject. Hence, in the present case, it could not be regarded
that he had freely accepted the benefit. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
The English law of unjust 1)_________ has always insisted that a claimant asking for
restitution must show that there is a good 2)_________ why restitution should
be 3)_________ to him. It has differed from its more ancient Continental
counterparts in that the ground for restitution was not an abstraction like «lack
of 4)_________ reason for the enrichment», but a
pragmatic, positive requirement or «unjust factor», as Professor Birks has
called it. One 5)_________ which lies at the heart of
the recent swaps litigation is whether there can be restitution in English
law for the mere reason that 6)_________ was 7)_________ pursuant to a
contract which has subsequently turned out to be void. If this question is
answered in the 8)_________, it will mean that the
English law of unjust enrichment has come close to adopting the civilian condictio indebiti – the claim
to 9)_________ on the basis that money was paid which was not due. In this
chapter, it is argued that that would be the beginning of the end of the
system of «unjust factors». The English 10)_________
of unjust enrichment would move considerably closer to civilian legal
systems. Before the question can be 11)_________, it is necessary to look very briefly at the
two different approaches. The leading text-book in Comparative Law, Zweigert & Kötz's
Introduction to Comparative Law, identifies «the entrenched position of the
institution of unjustified enrichment» as one of the 12)_________ features of
German law. For this reason amongst others, German law will serve as a model
of the Civilian approach. This «distinct question» is answered by English law by reference to a
list of what Professor Birks has called «unjust factors» – factors which render an 13)_________ unjust in the eyes of the
law. It is characteristic of these unjust 14)_________ that they give us an immediately intelligible reason
why restitution should follow. Professor Birks has identified three families
of unjust factors:4 the «I did not mean to give»
family of claims, «unconscientious receipt» and «policy-motivated
restitution». Where the claimant was mistaken in making the payment, as in
Barclays Bank v Simms,5 where a bank honoured a cheque which had been countermanded, or in Chase
Manhattan Bank v Israel-British Bank,6 where a payment had, by mistake, been 15)_________ twice, it is readily
apparent that the defendant's enrichment is unjust and should be reversed.
Similarly, where the claimant is forced to part with his money because of the
16)_________ illegitimate pressure, the
latter's enrichment will be considered «unjust» by the law – this time, «duress» is the unjust factor. In cases of «failure of consideration» payment is made on a certain
condition, normally that the defendant will counter-perform. Where that
counter-performance 17)_________,
as it did in the famous Fibrosa case, it is clear
that restitution should be available to the disappointed claimant. It is controversial whether there exists an additional family of
claims called «18)_________ receipt» or «free
acceptance». The reason for restitution here is argued to be the 19)_________ that the defendant
exploited the claimant's weakness in some way, or freely accepted a benefit
which he knew was not proffered gratuitously. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. Г. А. Жилин, отстаивает
узкий подход к определению сущности судебной ошибки, выделяет в качестве
причин судебных ошибок проблемы в профессиональной подготовке и недостаточный
опыт работы судьи; недостатки в сфере индивидуальных психологических свойств
личности судьи; небрежность и упущения в работе. Однако,
все это является субъективными факторами совершения судебных ошибок. Б. В. Красильников
называет несовершенство законодательства условием совершения судебных ошибок
и определяет, в каких формах это несовершенство проявляется: нечеткость
формулировки, противоречие нормативным актам, пробелы в законодательстве. В докладе Совета
Федерации Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации 2004 года «О состоянии
законодательства в Российской Федерации» признаётся едва ли не лавинообразный
характер «поправочного законодательства». Продолжается практика принятия
законов как бы «под условием». Анализируя причины
судебных ошибок можно выделить и тот факт, что многие судьи поверхностно
изучают материалы дела. Об этом свидетельствует и тот факт, что «тенденция
постоянного увеличения количества рассматриваемых судами дел, роста нагрузки на судей негативно сказывается на качестве выносимых
судебных актов» – подчеркивает
президиум Совета судей. Данную позицию
подтверждает и существующая судебная практика, в частности, в области
нарушения процессуального закона. В основном нарушаются требования ст. ст.
167, 233 ГПК РФ. Судебной Коллегией по гражданским делам ВС
РФ в 2004г. Было отменено решение Пятигорского городского суда по иску
Аронова к Коминой о разделе домовладения. В деле
имелась расписка о вручении уведомления ответчику, но установленных законом
сведений о времени судебного заседания она не содержала. ВС
РФ расценило это как ненадлежащее извещение. Усиление стабильности
законодательства, так же предотвратит совершение судебных ошибок. Перед
принятием закона, необходимо тщательное и всестороннее изучение всех аспектов
жизни, которые новый закон в будущем будет регулировать. Согласно ст. 12 закона «О
статусе судей в РФ» судья несменяем. Однако, рассуждая над человеческим
фактором как о причине судебных ошибок можно предположить, что достижение
судье преклонного возраста влияет на качество выполняемой им работы. В
частности, неспособность физически отслеживать меняющееся законодательство.
Следует поставить вопрос о снижении предельно возраста судей. Так же необходимо
отметить, что ответственность судей должна налагаться на них как за вынесение
незаконного судебного акта, если его незаконность подтверждается вышестоящей
судебной инстанцией, так и за систематическое нарушение процессуальных
сроков. Part 4 UNJUSTLY SUED: PROBLEMS WITH UNJUST ENRICHMENT
CLAIMS AGAINST CONTRACTUAL NON-PARTIES Joseph Price and I recently represented a
co-defendant sued in Arkansas state court by a plaintiff for breach of
contract. The client was not a party
to the contract at issue, so the plaintiff also brought an unjust enrichment
claim based on the same underlying facts as the breach-of-contract claim. The case of Servewell
Plumbing, LLC v. Summit Contractors, Inc., addressed this situation. Arkansas law is well established that,
absent a few exceptions, unjust enrichment «has no application when an
express written contract exists». Servewell, 362 Ark. The Eighth Circuit explained the general
rule: The reason for the rule that someone with an
express contract is not allowed to proceed on an unjust enrichment theory, is
that such a person has no need of such a proceeding, and moreover, that such
a person should not be allowed by means of such a proceeding to recover
anything more or different from what the contract provides for. U.S. v. Applied Pharmacy Consultants, (8th
Cir. 1999). In Servewell,
the Arkansas Supreme Court expanded the application of this general rule to
non-parties to the contract. Servewell involved a contract dispute between a
subcontractor and a general contractor and owner of a development
project. Among other allegations, the
subcontractor brought a claim for unjust enrichment against the developer of
apartment buildings. The claim was
based on the general contractor’s failure to pay the subcontractor for
property enhancements pursuant to a written contract between the general
contractor and subcontractor. The developer was not a party to the
contract between the subcontractor and general contractor. See id.
The subcontractor argued that the developer had been unjustly enriched
by the subcontractor’s improvements to the developer’s property, while the
subcontractor had received no compensation for its performance in providing
the benefits to the developer. The circuit court rejected the
subcontractor’s argument and dismissed the claim because the contract between
the general contractor and subcontractor governed the payment for services
aspect of the parties’ relationship. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the
circuit court’s ruling that the subcontractor’s claim against the developer
for unjust enrichment lacked merit. In doing so, the Supreme Court reaffirmed
the «settled principle» that a party may not recover under a theory of unjust
enrichment when a valid contract exists.
The
Supreme Court, however, recognized a new and narrow exception to that settled
principle, stating that the «subcontractor could recover from a (non-party to
the contract), even when a separate contract existed between the
subcontractor and general contractor, if the non-party has agreed to pay the
general contractor’s debt or if the circumstances surrounding the parties’
dealings can be found to have given rise to an obligation to pay». Despite this recognition, the Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal of the subcontractor’s unjust enrichment claim because
«there was no evidence of any such agreement between(the
parties…the general rule – that one
cannot recover in quasi-contract when an express contract exits– governs the matter». While Servewell
is not a new case, and the majority of the opinion discusses construction law
issues, Servewell did not limit its holding to the
particular facts and more recent non-construction case law cites Servewell. The tenets set forth in Servewell
should be considered when representing a client sued for unjust enrichment
when the case includes a written contract, even when the client is not a
party to that contract. Despite this narrow exception, you should be
aware of the statute of fraud’s prohibition for these types of agreements. EXERCISES 1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell
it in Russian. 2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the
text below.
Classifications and 1)_________ often contain
a residual category «others», and this taxonomy is no exception. In some
cases, restitution is available even though the case does not fit either of
these two broad 2)_________. Invariably, this is
because the law pursues a policy favouring
restitution in this kind of case. It will be 3)_________
to discuss «policy-motivated restitution» in more detail later. For now, the
well-known case of Woolwich v IRC may serve as an example. The Woolwich had
been 4)_________ for taxes which, in its view, the
Revenue had no power to raise. It nevertheless paid under protest. It then
successfully challenged the tax, showing that the assessment had been ultra 5)_________ and void. The Revenue repaid the 6)_________ tax, but refused to pay interest on it. The
Woolwich therefore had to show that, as soon as it paid over the money, it
had a restitutionary 7)_________
against the Revenue, which would naturally attract interest. The difficulty
was that the Woolwich had not made a mistake – it had known the 8)_________ was
ultra vires from the start, and had said so. Nor
could it be seriously contended that the payment had been made under duress:
any pressure exerted was the 9)_________ of due
legal process, and as such it was not «illegitimate». The Woolwich
nevertheless succeeded. The principle «no taxation without Parliament», the 10)_________ in favour of the
legality of government and the rule of law strongly favoured
restitution. Within this taxonomy there is no room for «restitution of moneys paid
under void transactions». Nullity as such does not 11)_________
to restitution, although this does not mean that restitution will not be
available in circumstances in which a payment is made under a void 12)_________.
In the majority of cases some unjust factor will be available: thus, if the
defendant has not yet 13)_________, the claimant 14)_________
be able to rely on failure of consideration. Even where this is not the case,
policy-motivated restitution may well be available. The Woolwich 15)_________ is an example in point: the Revenue's claim was
void, but it was not that voidness which led to
restitution, but the policy favouring 16)_________
legality. Often, and this is an important point to grasp at the outset, the
policy favouring 17)_________
will also favour restitution. That is not to say,
however, that this will always be the case in English law. 3. Read the following article and make a rendering
of it in English. Российские судьи допускают ошибки при рассмотрении 40% уголовных дел в
высшей инстанции. По мнению юристов, в нижестоящих судах статистика еще хуже.
Борьба за улучшение судебной системы РФ не привела к качественным изменениям
отправления правосудия. Число нарушений при рассмотрении дел продолжает
оставаться удручающим. Верховный суд РФ 27 апреля опубликовал обзор рассмотрения Судебной
коллегией уголовных дел в порядке надзора за второе полугодие 2009 года. За
это время было рассмотрено 834 уголовных дела против 869 за тот же период
2008 года. Несмотря на уменьшение числа обжалованных дел, количество
судейских ошибок продолжает оставаться значительным, пишет корреспондент РИА «Новый
Регион» Ольга Панфилова. Как отмечается в обзоре, примерно в 2/5 от общего количества дел,
дошедших до Верховного суда, нижестоящими судами были допущены ошибки в
применении правовых норм. По мнению юристов, если учитывать невысокую
квалификацию судей низового звена, количество допускаемых ошибок в уголовных
делах, рассматриваемых в первой и второй инстанциях, несоизмеримо больше, чем
2/5. При этом, масса ошибок судов повисает в
воздухе, когда участники процесса не стремятся обжаловать судебные решения, в
том числе по причине отсутствия доверия к судебной системе. По мнению судейского сообщества, большое
количество ошибок допускается при квалификации нарушений. Как считают
адвокаты, должностному лицу, которое решает вопрос о том, является ли то или иное действие преступлением, выгоднее представить
его таковым. Самый яркий пример здесь – мелкие хищения на сумму менее 1000 руб.,
которые являются административными правонарушениями. По разным данным, доля
таких преступлений в России – от 10 до 15%. Как отмечает издание РБК-daily,
одним из основных нарушений норм процессуального права, не указанных в
обзоре, является неразборчивое применение судами меры пресечения в виде
заключения под стражу. В целом российская система уголовного правосудия носит
карательный характер, считают представители адвокатского сообщества. Для уменьшения количества нарушений судьям рекомендовано неукоснительно
соблюдать требования закона и более тщательно
изучать практику применения законов при рассмотрении уголовных дел,
подчеркивается в обзоре. Наряду с этим председателям судов регионов
необходимо уделять больше внимания организации и проведению юридических
занятий, повышению качества отправления правосудия. |