I address the question in What Renders Enrichment Unjust?, 79 Tex. L. Rev. 1927, 1973-1980 (2001).  Generally, the term "cause of action" is used to refer to a field of law in which there a strong general principle of prima facie obligation, like negligence law today.  Often the term is used to describe a field of law in which there is at least a weak general principle of prima facie obligation, like the law of tortious interference in the US.  But this is dangerous, particularly in the US, where most lawyers and judges have a superficial grasp of private law.  Personally, I think unjust enrichment is best thought of a general heading of obligation without a principle of prima facie obligation, like the field of tort law.

A question:

 

Does anybody know of anything written on what counts as a cause of action in terms of a theoretical account of what one is and how they work? I’m struggling with the question of whether Canadian unjust enrichment law has one cause of action or several: Garland v Consumer Gas (and others) talk of the cause of action in unjust enrichment, which given what it says the prerequisites are seems reasonable. Whatever you might think of what the SCC says, it does appear to be a single cause of action, but there are others (Bell Mobility v Anderson) that talk of several causes of action.

 

One point of attack seems to me to ask “what counts as a single cause of action?” but I’m struggling to find anything.

 

Duncan

 

Ps apologies if you get this twice

 

Professor Duncan Sheehan

Deputy Head of School

UEA Law

University of East Anglia

Norwich Research Park

Norwich

NR4 7TJ

 

Phone: +44(1603)593255

 

Papers at http://ssrn.com/author=648495

See my BePress site at http://works.bepress.com/duncan_sheehan

 

-- 
Mark P. Gergen
Robert and Joann Burch D.P. Professor of Tax Law and Policy
University of California, Berkeley School of Law
598 Simon Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
Tel 510 643-9577
Fax 510 643-7397
mgergen@law.berkeley.edu