What is unwarranted enrichment?


Unjustified enrichment - what does it mean?
 
How can I get back what I have given without having the right to receive it? The hypothesis I find is called "unjust enrichment." I can learn more about her below.
 
What is unwarranted enrichment?
The law permits one person to enrich himself at the expense of another, but only upon the occurrence of certain facts, the conclusion of a contract (donation) or the will of the person, when paying a foreign debt (neighbor's current account). These "definite facts" or "the will of the person" the law calls generically with the word "ground". When there is no basis for a payment-property "relocation", there is unwarranted enrichment.
 
In other words, unjust enrichment is an unacceptable increase in property, saving costs or reducing them at the expense of one person.
 
What are the hypotheses of unjust enrichment?
Initial lack of reason
Here we mean an initial lack of reason, the hypotheses being the following:
 
The grounds for property shuffling have not occurred at all - eg. in case of a negligible deal - I buy an apartment without having kept the form of a notary deed. The contract will not take effect. The seller was not entitled to receive the amount and would not have such a right unless a new valid contract was concluded.
The justification has expired at the time of the material shift, for example. when I am a guarantor and I pay a contribution that has already been paid.
There is no obligation at all - eg. I pay the wrong man.
More than what is due - eg. I owe 10 thousand leva and I have paid 11 thousand.
The time limit for the money is five years from the day of receipt of the benefit.
 
Important! I can not ask for a return to that when I deliberately fulfill my moral duty. In this case, I have no legal obligation to do, but I have a moral one. For example, by paying maintenance to my grandchildren, I can not ask her for them, but I can by their parents.
 
Non-essential ground
This hypothesis would be present when the giving or receipt of the benefit was likely to arise, but the same did not happen because the condition was not fulfilled.
 
For example, I have signed a preliminary contract for the purchase and sale of real estate and have paid part of the money on it, but subsequently with the seller we did not sign a notary deed because he could not obtain the consent of the other co-owners, ie. the transfer of ownership has not "happened" and therefore the seller has to return my paid because the reason I paid did not take place.
 
Fuzzy ground
In this case, the reason for the grant / receipt of the benefit arises but then declines retroactively, eg. the contract I have paid is broken or the donation I have made is canceled.
 
The receivable of the receivable, resp. the beginning of the limitation period is the day when the ground is dropped.
 
And when I have no other option, where?
Where no of the preconditions listed above (lack of ground, unenforceable or fraudulent grounds) are present and there is no other remedy, while at the same time unjustly increasing the property of one person at the expense of the property of another person, the impoverished has the opportunity to want to return everything he is "impoverished".
 
The prerequisites that must be available are the following:
 
Enrichment - One person's asset (s) increases, decreases the liability (liabilities) or saves expenses (avoiding a certain asset reduction) according to the legal order. This happens at the expense of the property of another person. Cost savings are needed, the person has to bear them without a view of their return. It is important to know that enrichment is only proprietary. For example, I can not claim that our neighbors have enriched themselves by listening to the music coming from my apartment.
Defeat - decrease of the asset, increase of the liability or loss of the asset increase. It is important that this happened at the expense of another person. There is no impoverishment if the other party has benefited without harm, eg. the neighbors warm in the winter, and I stopped my heating, and yet my apartment "gets" a little heat.
Relationship between enrichment and impoverishment - the latter are a consequence of a common and standing outside of them with legal significance.
Lack of justification - there is no legal relationship or legal fact to justify the displacement of property assets.
I have no other claim to defend myself. Even if I had one, but I did not exercise it on time within the prescribed time limit (and as a result of which he was expired), I would not be able to take advantage of this opportunity either.
Are all the elements, I, as a person who has been uncircumcised, will be able to demand from the enriching the lesser of the sums of enrichment and impoverishment as a monetary equivalent.
 
The demand for my claim


«Back
 

What is unwarranted enrichment? What is unwarranted enrichment?