Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment in Contract Law

Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment in Contract Law

Author Name : Prof. Alisha Thomas, Hemant Chopra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56025/IJARESM.2022.109525

ABSTRACT

The one has been enriched from the receipt of a benefit, advantage at the cost of the other, the retention of the unfair enrichment, and lastly claim without defense. The concept of unjust enrichment had developed into a basis under which a court may order restitution, or to put it in another way, where the courts can fairly give compensation, rather than claiming for money or advantages received that were not due. In Moses v. Macferlen, Lord Mansfield had stated that the money action "lies for money paid by mistake; or upon a consideration which happens to fail; or for money obtained by imposition (express or implied); or extortion; or an undue advantage taken of the one’s situation, contrary to the laws made for the protection of persons in those circumstances." It is not recoverable if an amount is paid that is not due yet there is no basis for recovery. However, because the principle of unjust enrichment was not recognized previously, the concepts of "benefit," "at the expense of the other," and "unjustness" of retention tended to develop in a fragmented manner within the substantive categories in which relief was granted, and sometimes, as in the former rules, only a mistake as to liability gave rise to restitution, and that a payment made under a mistake of law was not recoverable in general. We'll start with the ideas of unjust enrichment in English law, then go on to the Indian Contract Act.

Keywords: Benefit, Restitution, Enrichment, Recovery, Unjust