Unjustified enrichment: surveying the landscape
Preliminary questions ‘Unjustified enrichment’. The expression is mysterious. So are the other terms in use for the same subject, ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘restitution’. What is an enrichment and when is it unjustified? To state that something amounts to unjustified enrichment is merely a conclusion, that because the enrichment is unjustified it should be returned, restored or made over to the person properly entitled to it. That conclusion is in need of supporting normative argument. But what sort of argument? Some time ago the Roman jurist Pomponius wrote the now-famous words nam hoc natura aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et iniuria fieri locupletiorem , ‘by the law of nature it is right that nobody should be unjustly enriched at another's expense’. Pomponius's maxim encapsulates the key elements of enrichment liability: enrichment, which is unjust, and which is at the expense of the claimant. But it exemplifies a problem that faces modern legal systems, too: formulating the principles of a law of unjustified enrichment in a way which is clear and yet not excessively broad. There is no doubt that Pomponius's formulation is, as a matter of classical Roman law, much too broad. There were many cases in which unjustified enrichment was simply allowed to rest where it arose. A clear instance is the claim of a possessor in good faith who improved land from which he was later ejected by the true owner.
Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comparative Overview
This article examines a variety of legal systems with a view to assessing the role currently played within each of them by the principle of unjust enrichment. By focusing on the characteristic features of unjust enrichment claims it seeks to demonstrate that, although there are significant differences between the ways in which different countries handle such claims, there is also much that those systems have in common. While under the common law the principle of unjust enrichment has endured a long struggle for recognition, in civil law systems it has been acknowledged for centuries. This may be because in civil law countries the principle has been expected to play only a residual, and therefore non-threatening, role in the law of obligations while in common law countries it has been called upon, if at all, to serve as the basis for the whole of the law of restitution. We should not assume, however, that all common law systems share one set of characteristics while all civil law systems share another. In some respects there is more in common between systems drawn from each category than there is between systems drawn from the same category. Mixed legal systems, as one might expect, tend to display characteristics drawn from both.
ARRESTS AMONG HOMELESS AND RUNAWAY YOUTHS: THE EFFECTS OF RACE AND GENDER
ABSTRACT This study examined the contributions of race and gender to the likelihood of a first post-run arrest for a more serious and less serious offense in a sample of homeless and runaway youths from four Midwestern states. Event history analysis was used to test the hypothesis that race and gender would interact so that the likelihood of a first post-run arrest for a more serious and less serious offense would be highest for non-white males and non-white females, respectively. Potentially confounding factors—deviant subsistence strategies, substance use, gang involvement and membership, prior arrests, age, prior physical abuse, age on own, and spending time on the street—were controlled in the analyses. The hypotheses regarding the interaction of race and gender were not supported by the data. Non-whites were more likely than whites, and males were more likely than females, to be arrested for a more serious offense, and white females were more likely than non-white females to be arrested for a less serious offense.