IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxjlsj/v41y2021i1p114-141..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unjust Enrichment: What We Owe to Each Other

Author

Listed:
  • Tatiana Cutts

Abstract

In some quarters, the focus of unjust enrichment scholarship has shifted from loss and gain towards the defendant’s ‘involvement in the story’—what she has done to warrant liability. The goal of this shift is to fit unjust enrichment within the ‘doer-sufferer’ template of ‘corrective justice’ theories of private law. I argue that this shift fails to reconcile unjust enrichment with the commitment to equal freedom upon which these theories depend. But we can justify restitution without forsaking the Kantian concern with rational agency. In this article, I endorse a contractualist approach to mistaken payments: a particular use of the state’s coercive power is just if it is one that everyone could rationally choose; everyone could rationally choose a rule placing the burden of risk for mistake with payees, if that rule does not make any such payee worse off than she was prior to the impugned transaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Tatiana Cutts, 2021. "Unjust Enrichment: What We Owe to Each Other," Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 114-141.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:1:p:114-141.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ojls/gqaa038
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxjlsj:v:41:y:2021:i:1:p:114-141.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ojls .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.