Continuity in the Interpretations of Legal Relationships in the Case of Unjustified Enrichment

The paper provides a theoretical justification of some substantive constructions that have constituted the civilistic heritage of the past periods and have laid the basis for the modern interpretation of legal relations concerning unjustified enrichment. The paper analyzes the continuity in the development of legal relations regarding the concept of unjustified enrichment. The author has shown that legal relations on unjustified enrichment are of systemic importance for the current law and order. They are located in a very extensive legal field of claims aimed at compensation for damage, and they represent civil law relations of a protective type. Being a real social phenomenon and, at the same time, a civilistic category, legal relations in unjustified enrichment can be analyzed: a) from the standpoint of economics; b) from a legal standpoint; c) from the standpoint of justice (they should coincide with legal standings, which in practice is not always achievable). Continuity in the interpretations of legal relations concerning unjustified enrichment expressed in the dynamics of their historical and legal development provides variability, gradual complication of forms and, at the same time, the constancy of the basic ethical and legal idea of the prohibition of unjustified enrichment. Markers of continuity include: 1) the general principle underlying the corresponding obligation; 2) formal and substantive criteria for determining the groundlessness in the enrichment process; 3) possible tools (forms, methods and means) for the protection of violated rights. Defining each of the listed elements in relation to a particular stage of the economic and legal development of society, we get a general picture of continuity, which for prognostic purposes can be extrapolated to the perspective of the development of the institution of a version claim in the domestic legal system.

1. Gerbutov VS. Evolyutsiya obogashcheniya. K ucheniyu ob obogashchenii po rossiyskomu pravu [The evolution of enrichment. To the Doctrine of enrichment under Russian Law]. Civil Law Review. 2012;12(2);36-60. (In Russ.).

2. Grimm DD. Ocherki po ucheniyu ob obogashchenii [Essays on the doctrine of enrichment]. St. Petersburg: M.M. Stasyulevich Publ.; Derpt. Schnackenburg Publ.; 1891–1893 Issues 1‑3. (In Russ.)

3. Dambarov SD. Osnovaniya vozniknoveniya i obekty kondiktsionnykh obyazatelstv: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Grounds for the occurrence and objects of conditional obligations: Cand. Sci. (Law) Diss.]. Moscow; 2007. (In Russ.).

4. Kareev NI. Osnovnye voprosy filosofii istorii [The main questions of the philosophy of history]. St. Petersburg: M.M. Stasyulevich Publ.; 1897. (In Russ.). XVI, 456 p.

5. Reznichenko AI. Kareev Nikolay Ivanovich. In: The New Philosophical Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. Moscow, 2001. P. 217.

6. Rozov NS. Filosofsko-antropologicheskie osnovaniya politiko-pravovoy regulyatsii budushchego miroporyadka [Philosophical and anthropological foundations of political and legal regulation of the future world order]. Intelros. 2013;2. Available at: http://intelros.ru/readroom/credo_new/k2-2013/19225-filosofsko-antropologicheskie-osnovaniya-politiko-pravovoy-regulyacii-buduschego-miroporyadka.html?ysclid=l6kmefd6kg583272033 [Accessed: 16.05.2022]. (In Russ.).

7. Ryasentsev VA. Obyazatelstva iz neosnovatelnogo obogashcheniya: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. [Obligations from unjustified enrichment: Cand. Sci. (Law) Diss.]. Moscow; 1939. (In Russ.).

8. Ryasentsev VA (ed.). Sovetskoe grazhdanskoe pravo. Ch. 2 [Soviet civil law]. Part 2. Moscow: Gosyuridizdat Publ.; 1961. (In Russ.).

9. Ushivtseva DA. Obyazatelstva vsledstvie neosnovatelnogo obogashcheniya: voprosy teorii i praktiki [Obligations due to unjustified enrichment: issues of theory and practice]. Tyumen: Slovo Publ.; 2006. (In Russ.).

10. Fleishits EA. Obyazatelstva iz prichineniya vreda i iz neosnovatelnogo obogashcheniya [Obligations from causing harm and from unjustified enrichment]. Moscow: Gosyurizdat Publ.; 1951. (In Russ.)