Content area
Full text
Abstract: In a wide range of situations, the law in different jurisdictions requires that a person who has been unjustly enriched at another's expense make restitution to the other. However, what justifies the liability for unjust enrichment? This fundamental question has perplexed unjust enrichment scholars, especially in the common law world, for decades, with various justificatory ideas being proposed while no consensus has been reached. This article explores the justification of the law of unjust enrichment within the context of China's historical, legal, and social frameworks for the first time. A historical review reveals that the notion of unjust enrichment has been persistently reserved in China after its transplantation through different historical periods due to its conformity with China's most influential philosophical tradition: Confucianism. Therefore, this article proposes a rational explanation for unjust enrichment liabilities through a Confucian lens. This innovative Confucian account complements existing Western theories of unjust enrichment.
I. INTRODUCTION
Scholars regard the law of unjust enrichment as "something of a lost child in every system."1 In general, this area of law requires a defendant who has been enriched at a claimant's expense to return the benefit if the receipt of enrichment is without a legal basis or with an unjust factor.2 This area of law is considered to have "a mission of fixing what would otherwise be unjust."3 The defendant's duty to return seems intuitively obvious, as he received what he was not meant to receive, lacking a legal basis or for which he gave nothing in return. However, at the heart of the law of unjust enrichment lies a mystery that has perplexed scholars for decades: what makes an enrichment unjust? In other words, what is the justifwation for imposing unjust enrichment liabilities? Unjust enrichment theorists have proposed various justifïcatory ideas, especially in common law scholarship, such as corrective justifïcation,4 instrumental justification,5 and proprietary justifïcation.6 Although some of the justifïcations seem plausible, each of these theories has been seriously criticized by other scholars for failing to provide a rational explanation. No consensus has been reached regarding the appropriate justification for the defendant's duty of restitution from unjust enrichment.
This article departs from the Western approaches and explores the justifïcatory idea of unjust enrichment by examining how the ancient Chinese dominant...