Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In trust law, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy imposed by a court to benefit a party that has been wrongfully deprived of its rights due to either a person obtaining or holding a legal property right which they should not possess due to unjust enrichment or interference, or due to a breach of fiduciary duty, which is intercausative with unjust enrichment and/or property interference.
The reception of unjust enrichment into Belgian law has been upheld multiple times by the Court of Cassation, which has ruled that unjust enrichment is a general principle of law. [27] [28] [29] The Court has stated that the legal basis for unjust enrichment is equity (ius aequum). According to the Court, five elements constitute unjust enrichment:
Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834 was a landmark family law decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. [1] The Court established a new formulation of the constructive trust as a remedy for unjust enrichment based on the ideas of Professor Donovan Waters, and in particular the requirements for such constructive trust in a common law relationship separation.
In New York, the elements of an unjust enrichment claim are “that (1) the other party was enriched, (2) at that party’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit ...
Constructive trusts and tracing remedies are usually used where the claimant asserts that property has been wrongly appropriated from them, and then either (i) the property has increased in value, and thus they should have an interest in the increase in value which occurred at their expense, or (ii) the property has been transferred by the ...
Unjust enrichment, change of position Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1988] UKHL 12 (6 June 1991) is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment , and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of ...
This is seen important for the question of what response, personal or proprietary, may come from a claim in unjust enrichment. As a matter of the conflict of laws , the court held that New York law was the proper law to determine if the payor retained an equitable interest in the sums paid by mistake, and that this was a substantive rule rather ...
Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, also known as Farah, is a decision of the High Court of Australia. [1] The case was influential in developing Australian legal doctrines relating to equity, property, unjust enrichment, and constructive trusts, [2] as well as the doctrine of precedent as it applies in Australia.