From: | Jason Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca> |
To: | obligations@uwo.ca |
Date: | 24/07/2013 14:49:00 UTC |
Subject: | ODG: Unjust Enrichment in South African Law |
Attachments: | Obligations Discussion Group July 2013.docx |
Conventional
thinking teaches that the
absence of liability - in particular contractual invalidity - is
itself the
reason for the restitution of transfers in the South African law
of unjustified
enrichment. However, this book argues that while the absence of
a relationship
of indebtedness is a necessary condition for restitution in such
cases, it is
not a sufficient condition. The book takes as its focus those
instances in
which the invalidity thesis is strongest, namely, those
traditionally
classified as instances of the condictio indebiti, the claim to
recover undue
transfers. It seeks to demonstrate that in all such instances it
is necessary
for the plaintiff to show not only the absence of his liability
to transfer but
also a specific reason for restitution, such as mistake,
compulsion or
incapacity. Furthermore, this book explores the reasons for the
rise of unjust
factors in South African law, attributing this development in
part to the
influence of the Roman-Dutch restitutio in integrum, an
extraordinary,
equitable remedy that has historically operated independently of
the
established enrichment remedies of the civilian tradition, and
which even now
remains imperfectly integrated into the substantive law of
enrichment. Finally,
the book seeks to defend in principled terms the mixed approach
to enrichment
by transfer (an approach based both on unjust factors and on the
absence of a
legal ground) which appears to characterise modern South African
law. It
advocates the rationalisation of the causes of action comprised
within the
condictio indebiti, many of which are subject to additional
historically-determined requirements, in light of this mixed
analysis.
-- Jason Neyers Professor of Law Faculty of Law Western University N6A 3K7 (519) 661-2111 x. 88435