Analysis of Mr. Presnel's case where he mistakenly paid GAVI company, and the legal grounds for recovering the amount under quasi-contracts and unjust enrichment.
Extract
[...] Presnel may act on the grounds of payment of the undue payment. On the unjust enrichment In addition to the payment of the undue payment, the person whose assets increase without justification, and to the detriment of another, must pay a compensation equal to the lesser of the two values of the enrichment or the impoverishment (Article 1303 of the Civil Code). This principle has been consecrated by the case law of the Court of Cassation in its decision 'Boudier' of 1892. [...]
[...] This is therefore a subjective indu inherent to the accipiens. The person who receives by mistake what is not owed to them must return it to the one from whom they received it in error (Article 1302-1 of the Civil Code). This principle has been confirmed by the Court of Cassation, which recalled that since the sums paid were not due, the debtor is in law, without being required to provide any other proof, to obtain restitution. (Cass. ass. plén April 1993, n°89-15.490). [...]
[...] A quasi-contract is a unilateral act made voluntarily that creates an obligation for the person who benefits, and sometimes for the person who makes it (Article 1300, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code). The debtor who has paid is called the solvens, while the creditor who has received the amount is called the accipens. In this case, Mr. Presnel has paid an amount by mistake to the company GAVI. Therefore, Mr. Presnel is the solvens, while the GAVI company is the accipens. It is necessary to dwell on the payment of the indu on the one hand, and on the unjust enrichment on the other hand. [...]
[...] In this case, the unjustified enrichment produced by Mr. Presnel's payment benefits the GAVI company, to the detriment of the latter. Therefore, a priori, Mr. Presnel could act on the ground of unjust enrichment in order to obtain compensation. However, the mechanism of unjust enrichment is only subsidiary, so it can only be admitted in the absence of any other action open to the applicant (Cass. civ March 1915, 'Brétoire'; Com October 2000, n°98-21-814). In this case, the payment of the induit is an action open to Mr. [...]
