Parulekar and Priyadarshan, ‘The Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment: Provisions and Fallacies’

The doctrine of unjust enrichment aims at preventing a person from taking any undue advantage at another’s expense and provides that such unjust benefit received as property, service, or other benefit must be compensated for by the beneficiary. It has evolved through case laws and the case that had set its foundation is Moses v Macferlan. It is an important aspect in the law and continues to be an ambiguous doctrine in absence of codification. The doctrine falls under the law of restitution but this category does not completely encompass it. Rather than focusing on the cause of action, more attention is diverted towards the remedy of restitution. Furthermore, there are several discrepancies in the doctrine that lack clarity even after numerous judgments. This paper aims to delve deeper into the meaning of the doctrine of unjust enrichment and its evolution, elements, provisions, and fallacies.

Parulekar, Aryaa and Priyadarshan, Pavitra, The Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment: Provisions and Fallacies (June 14, 2021). International Journal of Legal Research (ISSN 2349-8463), volume 8, issue 1, at pp 296-310, 2021.

First posted 2021-12-03 11:30:09

Leave a Reply