2014•Osgoode Hall law journalOpen access

The Justice in Unjust Enrichment

Dan Priel

Open full text 3 citations

Abstract

The question of what justice has to do with the law of unjust enrichment (if it has anything to do with it at all) has in recent years come to occupy scholars who have sought to explain the theoretical foundations of this area of law and its relationship with other branches of private law. A popular answer has been that the law of unjust enrichment, like the rest of private law, instantiates the politically neutral norms of corrective justice. In this article, I argue that this is not the case in two distinct senses. First, even on its own, corrective justice does not provide a satisfactory grounding for this area of law (or, for that matter, for other branches of private law). Second, parts of the law of unjust enrichment are explained by competing notions of justice. I consider some of them in this article, and I show that what all of them have in common is that they are grounded in considerations of distributive justice or that they are part of a political theory. In the concluding sections of the article, I offer a way of reconciling these political foundations of unjust enrichment law with private law’s seeming indifference to distributive considerations. I do this by calling attention to the institutional constraints under which courts operate. I argue that while such constraints are essential for understanding private law adjudication, they do not challenge the political foundations of private law, and they undermine many of the practical recommendations for private law offered by corrective justice theorists.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The question of what justice has to do with the law of unjust enrichment (if it has anything to do with it at all) has in recent years come to occupy scholars who have sought to explain the theoretical foundations of this area of law and its relationship with other branches of private law. A popular answer has been that the law of unjust enrichment, like the rest of private law, instantiates the politically neutral norms of corrective justice. In this article, I argue that this is not the case in two distinct senses. First, even on its own, corrective justice does not provide a satisfactory grounding for this area of law (or, for that matter, for other branches of private law). Second, parts of the law of unjust enrichment are explained by competing notions of justice. I consider some of them in this article, and I show that what all of them have in common is that they are grounded in considerations of distributive justice or that they are part of a political theory. In the concluding sections of the article, I offer a way of reconciling these political foundations of unjust enrichment law with private law’s seeming indifference to distributive considerations. I do this by calling attention to the institutional constraints under which courts operate. I argue that while such constraints are essential for understanding private law adjudication, they do not challenge the political foundations of private law, and they undermine many of the practical recommendations for private law offered by corrective justice theorists.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The question of what justice has to do with the law of unjust enrichment (if it has anything to do with it at all) has in recent years come to occupy scholars who have sought to explain the theoretical foundations of this area of law and its relationship with other branches of private law. A popular answer has been that the law of unjust enrichment, like the rest of private law, instantiates the politically neutral norms of corrective justice. In this article, I argue that this is not the case in two distinct senses. First, even on its own, corrective justice does not provide a satisfactory grounding for this area of law (or, for that matter, for other branches of private law). Second, parts of the law of unjust enrichment are explained by competing notions of justice. I consider some of them in this article, and I show that what all of them have in common is that they are grounded in considerations of distributive justice or that they are part of a political theory. In the concluding sections of the article, I offer a way of reconciling these political foundations of unjust enrichment law with private law’s seeming indifference to distributive considerations. I do this by calling attention to the institutional constraints under which courts operate. I argue that while such constraints are essential for understanding private law adjudication, they do not challenge the political foundations of private law, and they undermine many of the practical recommendations for private law offered by corrective justice theorists.

Key concepts: Unjust enrichment, Economic Justice, Political science, Law, Law and economics, Restitution, Economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Justice in Unjust Enrichment — Research Paper | ScholarLens