NATURAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE COMMON LAW OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Author: WU, TANG HANG
Source: Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, Volume 6, Number 2, 2006 , pp. 133-156(24)
Publisher: Hart Publishing
Abstract:This paper investigates the suggestion by some scholars of the necessity of transplanting the concept of natural obligations into the common law of unjust enrichment. The argument advanced in this paper is that such a legal transplant is undesirable because the concept of natural obligations in the civil law tradition might distort the common law and it is too vague to be used as a general defence. Instead of introducing the concept of natural obligations as a defence, it is suggested the law of unjust enrichment ought to be balanced with the recognition of two defences against restitutionary recovery: money paid pursuant to a time-barred debt and money paid in relation to a gambling loss. In neither case may the money be recovered simply by proving a mistake of law.
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: January 1, 2006
- The Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal (OUCLJ) is the flagship journal of Oxford University's postgraduate law community, produced under the aegis of the Law Faculty.
It is published twice-yearly and endeavours to foster international academic debate and exchange on a wide range of legal topics of interest throughout the Commonwealth.
- Editorial Board
- Information for Authors
- Subscribe to this Title
- Information for Advertisers
- Sample Paper
- Email alerts (Hart books and journals)
- ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites