Within the framework of civil turnover, a group of so-called conditional obligations is distinguished. In a literal interpretation, this is a legal relationship for the return of values lost by mistake. In the domestic legal system, these are obligations due to unjust enrichment. What are they? We will understand further.
general characteristics
Obligations arising from unjust enrichment are non-contractual. They perform a protective function. Their scope and features are regulated by the provisions of Chapter 60 of the Civil Code.
According to paragraph 1 1102 of the Article of the Code, an entity that acquired or saved property at the expense of a third party, without legal grounds, is obliged to return it.
Forms
The concept of obligations as a result of unjust enrichment encompasses two ways to obtain benefits: by acquiring or preserving values.
In the first case, the property goes into the economic possession of the acquirer. Moreover, rights to values may not arise or arise, but without sufficient grounds for this. Acquisition means an increase in wealth.
When saving, the quantity (volume) of values remains the same, although it should have decreased if the legal fact that gave rise to unjust enrichment had not occurred.
Terms
For obligations arising from unjust enrichment, the following symptoms are characteristic:
- The subject has benefited from another person.
- There was no legal basis for enrichment, or subsequently they disappeared.
When acquiring / saving property from one person, the volume of material assets of another decreases.
Baselessness
Not all enrichment leads to the emergence of conditional obligations. The key condition is the absence of legal grounds for gaining benefits. It does not matter, obligations arose as a result of the actions of the enriched, injured, third-party person or as a result of other circumstances beyond their control.
The enrichment is considered unreasonable if the savings or acquisitions occurred without the grounds stipulated by the legislative or other regulatory act, as well as the contract.
Legal Facts
The grounds for legal savings or acquisition of property are enshrined in Article 8 of the Civil Code. For example, the successor increases the volume of his property at the expense of the testator. In this case, there is no unjust enrichment. The law provides that the material values of the deceased pass to the heirs in the order of universal succession.
Similarly, the issue of obtaining income on bonds, cash deposits, shares, as a result of debt forgiveness , etc.
But the repeated receipt by the supplier of payment for the same batch of goods will be considered unjust enrichment. It will be recognized unreasonable even when initially the grounds for obtaining benefits existed, but subsequently disappeared. For example, the heir received the property by will, but after a while it was declared invalid.
Subjects
In obligations from unjust enrichment participate:
- Acquirer - a person who received or saved property.
- Lender - an entity entitled to demand a return of values.
The subjects of obligations from unjust enrichment can be citizens (including those incapable), a legal entity (regardless of the nature of the legal personality).
An object
It is the action of the debtor (acquirer) aimed at returning the saved or acquired property. In some cases, a specific victim is absent in the legal relationship. For example, the benefits derived from poaching or illegal fishing are considered unreasonable. In such situations, the fulfillment of the obligation of unjust enrichment is performed in favor of the state or organization. Relevant cases should be provided for in law.
The budget is also collected when the subject, through whom the debtor was enriched, has lost the right to property. Speech, in particular, about cases of receiving a bribe.
The content of the obligation from unjust enrichment is formed from the right of the victim to demand the return of the received (in the form of monetary compensation or in kind) and the obligation of the debtor to return the acquired / saved property.
Qualification Nuances
As mentioned above, the occurrence of obligations is determined by the fact of unjustified enrichment, whether or not provided for by law. It may be a lawful or unlawful action of the enriched, injured or third-party entity itself. The fact may be the behavior of the animal, natural disaster, another circumstance that gave rise to unjustified enrichment.
When qualifying an event under Article 1102 of the Civil Code, it is not the nature of the behavior of the debtor (acquirer), the nature of the facts that caused the enrichment, but the lack of grounds for saving / acquiring values.
All life situations cannot be foreseen in law. In this regard, the grounds arising from unjust enrichment of obligations are not listed in the norm, but are only summarized in article 1102.
Difficulty in practice
When considering disputes, problems often arise with the determination of the amount payable for the use of other people's wealth. Courts are usually governed by rule 3 of paragraph 424 of the Civil Code. According to the norm, the price that is usually charged in similar circumstances for similar objects, works, services is applied.
When returning property, the debtor is responsible for any, including accidental harm. The obligations for unjust enrichment include compensation for shortages, deterioration of the state of values. Compensation is determined from the moment when the acquirer became or should have become aware of the unreasonableness of obtaining property. Until that moment, he will be responsible for gross negligence and intent.
The obligation to return material assets or to pay compensation for them must be fulfilled immediately after the acquirer has learned of unjust enrichment. If this is not done, he will have to compensate the victim for losses associated with a further change in the value of material assets.
The injured party may demand compensation in accordance with paragraph 1 of article 1105 even when the use of property is impossible due to its depreciation.
Income Compensation
Property acquired / saved unreasonably can be profitable. Income is expressed differently. This can be natural production (offspring of animals), profit from transactions (leasing, etc.).
Due to the fact that the property was acquired unreasonably, the receipt of income from its use will also be unjustified. However, this fact is recognized in the legislation only if the debtor was or should have become aware of the absence of grounds for using the values. Otherwise, the acquirer would be placed in conditions that exclude normal economic operation of the facility; there would always be a danger of the return of income received from property. Moreover, non-use of values would lead to their unjustified exclusion from circulation. This, in turn, could adversely affect the interests of the person through whom the property was acquired.
Given the above, the legislator established the obligation of the acquirer to return or compensate the victim for the income received or expected from the moment when he became aware or should have become aware of the unjustification of enrichment. Profits earned up to this time are not returned or compensated. When considering the issue of recovery after this point, it is necessary to be guided by the provisions of paragraph 1 of paragraph 1107 of the Civil Code.