2025/07/01 by Francis Cardell-Oliver
Business, Management and Accounting · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Counterfactual conditional #Counterfactual thinking #Dispute Resolution and Class Actions #Epistemology #Law #Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems #Legal principles and applications #Philosophy #Political science #Psychology #Restitution #Unjust enrichment
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s000819732510069x
openalex publication_date 2025/07/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Abstract This article is concerned with the question whether a defendant in an unjust enrichment action can reduce or eliminate its liability by establishing that it could have obtained the enrichment (or part of it) from the claimant in a way that would not have given rise to liability. The answer in principle ought to be no. In arguing for that conclusion, I consider the meaning of “enrichment” and “loss”, the nature of the change of position defence and the basis of liability for unjust enrichment in cases involving ultra vires charges by public authorities and the taking of money without consent by private defendants.