UNJUST ENRICHMENT:- EXPLANATION AND EVOLUTION

According to the concept of unjust enrichment, no one should benefit unfairly at the expense of another. Additionally, it suggests that no one should profit from another's position when doing so results in a loss for one party and a gain for another. English law is where the concept of unjust enrichment first surfaced.?Early in the 18th century, general lawyers were unaware of the concept of unjust enrichment, but they nevertheless offered remedies in a number of cases that were eventually categorized under the theory.

The principle of Unjust Enrichment can be stated in a simplified manner as

A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other. The meaning of this line is that if a person has gained benefit from another person and thereby causing loss to the other person, then the person who has gained is required to reimburse the plaintiff equal to the amount of benefit received by the defendant.

There are three ways to understand the principle of unjust enrichment:

1. ?Unjust enrichment can be seen as an Aristotelian equity principle that corrects when generally sound laws result in unfair outcomes in specific circumstances.
2. ?Unjust enrichment is best understood as a "legal principle" that encompasses a broad conception of justice and from which courts can infer remedies to specific reparation issues.
3. Unjust enrichment can be easily interpreted as representing a restitution case's recurring topic.

?

The idea of unjust enrichment has been defined differently in numerous texts, but in essence, it indicates that when someone benefits from another person without giving anything back, they are unjustly enriching themselves at that other's expense.

According to Black Law Dictionary, unjust enrichment is the:

• The retention of a benefit conferred by another, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected.
• A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense.
• The area of law dealing with unjustifiable benefits of this kind.

According to Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon, the principle of unjust benefit implied that the person having passed on the burden of tax to another, directly or indirectly, would not be entitled to get the refund, even if such a refund is permissible. Having passed on the burden of tax to another person, directly or indirectly, it would be clearly a case of unjust enrichment if the importer/seller is then able to get the refund of the duty paid from the government notwithstanding the incidence of tax having already been passed to the purchaser.

According to Oxford Law Student Dictionary, a cause of action developed at the common law and equity, whereby, roughly, a person who is unjustly enriched, either by receipt of value from the plaintiff in circumstances where he or she ought to return it, or by profiting from a wrong done to the plaintiff, is required to pay over the value of that enrichment to the plaintiff.

According to Capital Legal and Medical Dictionary, person taking advantage of unclear legal position during the pendency of leis, would be subjected to the doctrine of unjust enrichment and will be liable to refund back the money so received.

According to the Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary, where a person unjustly obtains a benefit at the expense of another. In certain cases where money is obtained by mistake or through fraud or for a consideration which has wholly failed, the law implies a promise to repay it. The rule against unjust enrichment is embodied in section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, of 1872 and founded not upon any contract or tort but upon a third category of law, namely quasi-contract or restitution.

According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Law, the retaining of a benefit (as money) conferred by another when principles of equity and justice call for restitution to the other party; also: the retaining of property acquired especially by fraud from another in circumstances that demand the judicial imposition of a constructive trust on behalf of those who in equity ought to receive it. It is a doctrine that requires an equitable remedy on behalf of one who has been injured by the unjust enrichment of another.

Evolution of principle of unjust enrichment

The doctrine of unjust enrichment was originally based in English law upon the principle of assumpit or ‘had and received’ The courts of equity covered much ground as the common law action for money had and received. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 followed this line: under the heading of ‘of certain relations resembling those created by contract’, it included claims for necessaries supplied to those without contractual capacity, claims for indemnity or contribution, claims to be paid for the beneficial services provided without the intention of making any gift, claims against the finder of goods and claims for the money paid by the mistake.