Cases of unjust enrichment in judicial practice of arbitration are considered the most popular. Moreover, their number only increases annually. In such cases, special attention is paid to evidence. Let us consider in more detail the features of the ugly practice of unjust enrichment .
General information
First you need to decide what unjust enrichment is. In judicial practice , it refers to property obtained at the expense of another person as a result of legally unjustified actions. In such cases, the parties are referred to as the acquirer and the victim.
Terms
Unjust enrichment in judicial practice is recognized subject to the following conditions:
- The fact of enrichment is established. The case in this case is that the acquirer uses the received thing, benefits from it, increases the property mass, but does not spend money, as it would be with a regular turnover.
- The object was not acquired as a result of economic activity.
- The enrichment is not based on an agreement or legislative norms, that is, it has no basis.
Occurrence cases
When does unjust enrichment take place ? In judicial practice, there are several situations:
- Erroneous payment of a certain amount of money to the acquirer, transfer of a thing, provision of a service, performance of work, exemption from property liability.
- The commission of unlawful actions by the acquirer in relation to material values.
- Obtaining property due to natural disasters, accidents, etc.
- Erroneous actions of a third party.
The property includes movable and immovable objects, money, things, securities, other tangible objects that can be transferred to citizens and legal entities. Accordingly, all of them can become the subject of unjust enrichment. In judicial practice, when considering such cases, the norms of the Civil Code, as well as procedural legislation, are used.
Occurrence of duties and rights
Within the framework of the legal circulation of property, the rights and obligations of persons arise when:
- Conclusion of transactions.
- Adoption of acts by state bodies and territorial authorities.
- Court rulings.
- The acquisition of material assets in the manner prescribed by law.
- Intentional or careless harm.
- Unjust enrichment.
Recovery
In judicial practice, when considering cases of unjustified enrichment, the provisions of Article 1102 of the Civil Code are used. According to the norm, the acquirer must return the received values to the victim. If income was derived from the property, it shall be compensated in accordance with article 1107.
The time period within which the acquirer is obliged to perform the indicated actions begins to flow from the moment when the victim has become or should have become aware of a violation of his rights.
Buyer Features
When presenting claims for the collection of unjust enrichment in judicial practice, there are cases when obligations are imposed on the victim. In particular, he must compensate the acquirer for the expenses that he incurred in connection with the return of the property. The relevant provisions are enshrined in article 1108 of the Civil Code.
The amount of compensation for a claim for unjust enrichment in judicial practice is determined based on the cost of maintaining and storing the facilities. It should be noted that only a bona fide acquirer has the right to compensation, that is, a person who was not aware that the property came to him as a result of unjustified legal actions.
Ways to return values
The return of property received as a result of unjustified enrichment is the direct responsibility of the acquirer. The main methods are the transfer of things in kind and compensation for its value, as well as costs incurred by the victim.
As the judicial practice shows , unjust enrichment when renting is easier to return than in the case of alienation of property. The fact is that in this case it will not be difficult to prove ownership of a thing. If the object has been alienated several times, it is extremely difficult to establish the original owner, that is, the victim.
Exceptions
When applying the rules on unjust enrichment, it is necessary to take into account that not all property can be returned to the victim. Article 1109 of the Civil Code provides for exceptions. Refund is not possible if:
- The acquirer handed over the objects to the victim prior to the occurrence of obligations for compensation and paid interest.
- The property was transferred under the transaction to a third party, and the statute of limitations for the presentation of claims has expired. It will not matter whether the victim knew about the beginning of his course or not.
- The objects are earnings, pension, alimony and other payments, which are the only means of subsistence. The collection is not applied to them if the acquirer proves that he did not make counting errors in calculating them.
- The property was transferred for charitable purposes or to pay off a non-existent obligation. In this case, the acquirer must prove that the victim was aware of these circumstances.
This list is considered closed.
Assignment of Rights
In judicial practice on unjust enrichment , a variety of situations are considered. Certain difficulty is caused by cases when the acquirer, through the transfer of rights or in another similar way, transferred tangible assets to a third party.
In such situations, the victim needs to get back his legal right to own the object. The acquirer, in turn, is obliged to return all documentation confirming ownership.
Common Disputes
In judicial practice, cases related to:
- The citizen’s petition for the return of money received to the account of third parties without preliminary execution of the contract.
- A random transfer of funds to citizens and organizations due to an erroneous indication of account details.
In the latter case, if the acquirer refuses to pay the money received unreasonably, the court will demand from him all payment documents (receipts, checks, warrants). If in the near future no other funds have been received in his account, the entire amount is fully compensated to the victim.
In the first case, as a rule, the courts refuse to satisfy the applicant's request for a refund. The fact is that in this situation, the victim knows in advance that he does not have any obligations to the acquirer, however, he took actions at his own discretion. In this case, there is no unjust enrichment.
Additionally
Often, in practice, work is performed and services are provided without a contract. In such situations, often customers are dishonest and refuse to pay a fee. The subject who provided the service or performed the work, of course, goes to court. However, his claims for remuneration may not be satisfied. In such situations, the applicant may invoke the rules on unjust enrichment. If he succeeds in proving the fact of dishonesty of the customer, he can count not only on reimbursement, but also on compensation for other losses associated with the statement of claim.
More recently, banking organizations imposed additional services on customers when applying for a loan. In case of refusal from them, the subject was refused a loan. As a result, financial institutions received additional income against the will of customers. Courts recognized such profits as unjust enrichment. As a result, borrowers charged a fee for these imposed services from the banking structure. The main loan agreement remained valid, except for the clause on additional services. He was recognized as illegal.
Conclusion
In order not to get into a difficult situation, you need to be vigilant when making transactions. This is especially true for the acquisition of real estate. When buying and selling, you must save all documents confirming cash transactions.