Extract
[...] We then saw an unjustified enrichment for the owner of the land who was able to harvest without having sown. [...]
[...] The person normally has consciousness of the random nature of these games June The participant was an experienced clerk) > Limit to the admission of quasi-contracts : The recipient must not be in bad faith September the recipient was in bad faith so no quasi-contract, he had filled in his ticket for the lottery with a threatening letter to the lottery company of a lawsuit, he himself wrote that he recognized a problem. [...]
[...] > Finally, enrichment must be the undeniable link of impoverishment It can be : - Direct The value left the impoverished's estate to enter directly into that of the wealthy - Indirect Estate of interposition that intervenes between that of the impoverished and the wealthy (example of the child who helps his parents while the others do not) II- The absence of cause > This is the second condition article 1303-1 of the civil code enrichment is unjustified when it does not result from the accomplishment of an operation by the impoverished nor from a liberal intention The cause of the enrichment can be explained by a contract, and then we will exclude the enrichment without cause The same applies to a legal obligation If a debtor does not pay his debt because the action is prescribed, enrichment of his estate and loss of the creditor's point of view BUT there is a legal justification civil chamber, July 18, 1910 If we stay within the contract or the legal obligation, there is no possibility of speaking of unjustified enrichment > But if it goes beyond this legal or contractual framework, we can invoke it January civil 1 Exceeding the threshold of participation in the marriage, action for unjustified enrichment recognized by the Court of Cassation because the ex-wife's behavior was beyond (and this even if it was a legal obligation) > It should not also be that the origin of the enrichment is explained by the interest that the impoverished person could have had (who would have hoped for a gain) Here, we can talk about the acceptance of risk > The impoverishment should not be explained by the fault of the impoverished person Civ May 1953 grandmother asks for compensation for childcare expenses of her grandchildren because the court's conviction had condemned her to give up the children > Without mentioning fault, there are also behaviors that are not vigilant enough or comparable to bad faith, which thwart unjust enrichment Commercial Court June 1968 We refused unjust enrichment to a garage owner who carried out unwanted work III- The principle of subsidiarity of the action > New requirement considered by the Court of Cassation > This principle aims to prevent the action from encroaching on the domain of other actions An action in rem against it can only be considered if no other action is capable of being brought Once an action would be feasible, we cannot turn to the action in rem verso (regardless of whether the other action works) This is delicate The margin of maneuver between the absence of other foundations and the absence of possibility of winning recourse is quite fine There must be no other applicable rules = Subsidiary mechanism The Court of Cassation said in a civil chamber 3 decision of 15 May 1973 'The action cannot be admitted to supplement another action that the plaintiff cannot bring due to a prescription, a lapse, a foreclosure, or as a result of the authority of the thing judged, or because it cannot provide the evidence it requires, or due to any other legal obstacle' If this principle is respected, then we are dealing with an action in rem verso Section II - Effects > it's the same idea as quasi contracts: the indemnification of the impoverished by the enriched BUT confined within a double limit (article 1303 of the Civil Code) : - The impoverished person must not receive more than what they have impoverished - The enriched person must not give more than what they have enriched > If it's the same value, it's easy But if it's a different value for both, it's more complex (Example: I paid for the paint and painted everything, they did nothing and didn't pay a painter > In case of a difference, the indemnification will be the lowest of the values So we will have to evaluate both values to determine the lowest one Principle of neutrality as in quasi-contracts As long as the impoverished person has lost nothing, we don't care if the enrichment was stronger The impoverishment is assessed on the day of the impoverished person On the other hand, the enrichment is assessed on the day of the lawsuit > The evidence must be provided by the plaintiff in the action: - He must establish his impoverishment (not very difficult, even if it's difficult to evaluate the time spent) - He must also demonstrate that the defendant in the action has enriched himself and to what extent - He must finally demonstrate the absence of cause (requirement mentioned above) > Sometimes, the impoverishment is partially caused (the one who became impoverished benefited from this impoverishment for a certain time, there was an interest on their part) It will be necessary to evaluate this in order to take it into account Chapter 2 - The crcreation of an illusion of gain > Last quasi-contract Illusion of a gain This is a judicial creation, not codified > The court of cassation has been interested in public lottery advertising Hope of a gain The court of cassation wanted to regulate things Section I - The search for a foundation > The notion of quasi-contract did not immediately impose itself The jp first saw in commercial practices a unilateral commitment on the part of the one who is behind the advertising judgment rendered by the first civil chamber March 1995 > It was difficult to make this legal basis live so we started talking about a contractual commitment civil chamber February 1998 The organizer would have wanted to commit to paying to the recipient and that he would have accepted the gain BUT we cannot consider here that there is an offer SO there is no contract > Then we saw the extra-contractual liability on the ground of article 1382 of the civil code (old) Compensation doesn't go far It's disappointment, disillusionment, we didn't gain anything (but we didn't lose anything) That doesn't work > And then the Court of Cassation creates a new quasi-contract (on the border of extra-contractual liability and contractual liability) Recognition of this foundation in a decision of the mixed chamber of 6 September 2002 Censure of the decision of the judges of the fact because the court of appeal did not use the correct legal basis Article 1371 (former) of the Civil Code, the Court of Cassation states that the organizer of a lottery who announces a gain to a person named without highlighting the existence of a risk is, by this purely voluntary fact, obliged to deliver it > Here, there are advantages and criticisms Advantages : - Extracontractual liability allows participants in the lottery to allocate the entire false gain promised to them (as if it were an unexecuted contract) Disadvantage : - It integrates quite poorly with the other quasi-contracts, sanction of a disappointed hope - Subjective critique: one sees less the idea of equity that dominates in the other quasi-contracts Here, it's almost the idea of sanctioning an abuse of weakness Atypical and fragile quasi-contract, so the 2016 reform did not codify it Section II - The search for critères The announcement of a property [...]
[...] This announcement must be addressed nominatively to the recipient The risk must be MENTIONED and this in a CLEAR manner The risk must appear explicitly, must not be hidden and in small characters Civil Chamber May 2005 3. [...]
[...] Contract Law - Quasi-contracts: quasi-contracts of jurisprudential origin > Two quasi-contracts: - Enrichment without cause/without justification Not jurisprudentially but in the Civil Code - The creation of an illusion of a gain Chapter 1 - Unjustified Enrichment > Creation of unjustified enrichment to extend the idea of a rebalancing between two estates where one has impoverished at the expense of the other Loss of time is a impoverishment On the other hand, there is a gain for the other > Observation that the management of affairs and the repetition of indu do not cover all the hypotheses in which we find a patrimonial imbalance It is based on article 1371 of the civil code 'Quasi-contracts are the purely voluntary acts of man from which there results any engagement whatever towards a third party and sometimes a reciprocal engagement of the two parties' This text does not define unjustified enrichment BUT it is an article intended to open up on the two quasi-contracts that the civil code knew at the time general definition article?) > The Court of Cassation then managed to find a normative scope in a text that originally did not have one It considered that in addition to defining quasi-contracts, the other following articles concerning the two quasi-contracts were only examples, thanks to this article we can imagine others It did so on the occasion of the Marchand d'engrais decision, Chamber of Requests, June A farmer had sown the field and the lease was expiring before the harvest. [...]
