Общият иск за неоснователно обогатяване в някои смесени юрисдикции

Абстракт

Студията прави опит да проследи по какъв начин еволюцията на идеята за създаване на общ фактически състав на неоснователното обогатяване в класическата двойка „противостоящи“ си групи правни семейства, а именно тези от романо-германски тип и тези, принадлежащи към англо-саксонското семейство, оказва влияние върху рецепцията на института в някои смесени юрисдикции. Изяснено е, че научният интерес към тези хибридни правни системи е обясним с огромния сравнителен, юриспруденциален и исторически потенциал, който те притежават, бидейки подложени на едновременното влияние на common law и на континенталното право. И именно това позволява чрез проследяване на рецепцията на избраните от тях модели да бъде взето становище по някои въпроси, свързани със систематиката на правото, и в частност с въпроса дали може и трябва правото на неоснователно обогатяване да бъде структурирано чрез една генерална клауза. Затова и в настоящото изложение, след представяне на някои особености на едни от най-динамично развиващите се смесени юрисдикции като Южна Африка, Шотландия, Квебек, Луизиана, Бразилия и Израел, е направен извод, че техният подход, в по-голяма или по-малка степен, свидетелства за една трайна тенденция на възприемане на общ иск за неоснователното обогатяване. Това на свой ред съставлява сериозен аргумент в полза на идеята, че модерният цивилистичен подход в материята на неоснователното обогатяване трябва да остане именно този на възприемането на общо правило без това непременно да означава изоставяне на типологията на специалните средства за имуществено уравнение.

Библиография:

Колен, Амброаз, Капитан, Анри. Елементарен курс по френско гражданско право. Т. 2, кн. 1 и 2. Задължения и договори. Oбща теория и източници. София, 1929.

Матеева, Екатерина. Към учението за правните семейства в съвременността през призмата на частното право. – Год. СУ. Юрид. фак., 86, 2019.

Митев, Красимир. Възникване и развитие на идеята за общ фактически състав на неоснователното обогатяване. – В: Правната наука – традиции и актуалност. Пловдив: Унив. изд. Паисий Хилендарски, 2012.

Alvin, See. An Introduction to the Law of Unjust Enrichment. Malayan Law Journal, 2013, № 5, Research Collection School Of Law. Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1228.

Beatson, Jack, Schrage, Eltjo. Cases, Materials and Texts in the Law of Unjustified Enrichment. Hart Publishing. Oxford, 2003.

Visser, Daniel. Cultural Forces in the Making of Mixed Legal Systems. Tulane Law Review, 2003, 47.

Birks, P. Mclead. The Implied Contract Theory of QuasiContract: Civil Option Current in the Century Before Blackstone. – Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1986.

Challies, George Swan. The Doctrine of Unjustified Enrichment in the Law of the Province of Quebec. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur. 2nd edn, 1952.

Dawson, John. Indirect Enrichment. – In: Ius Privatum Gentium: Festschrift f¨ur Max Rheinstein. (Ed.by E. von Caemmerer, S. Mentschikoff and K. Zweigert). 1969, vol. II.

Dawson, John. Unjust Enrichment: A Comparative Analysis. Chicago, 1951.

Dickson, Brice. Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comparative Overview. – The Cambridge Law Journal, vol. 54, no. 1, 1995, 100–126. Available from: JSTOR, www.jstor.org/ stable/4508037.

Descheemaeker, Eric. L’enrichissement injustifié: The Reform of 10 February 2016 in a Historical and Comparative Perspective (July 1, 2019). 3 Tribonien (2019), Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3447009

Dietrich, Jorg. Restitution: A New Perspective. Sydney: Federation Press, 1998.

Flume, W. Die ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung nach dem Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch als eine Rechtsfigur der Bereicherung. – In: 50 Jahre Bundesgerichtshof. Festgabe der Wissenschaft ( Ed. By Canaris et al.), München: 2000

Friedmann, D. Israel: General Survey. – Restitution Law Review, 1993.

Gallo, P. Unjust Enrichment: A comparative analysis. – The American journal of Comparative Law, 1992.

Gomes, Júlio M. V. Unjust Enrichment: A Few Comparative Remarks. – European Review of Private Law, 2001, № 2.

Grantham, Ross, Rickett, Charles. Disgorgement for Unjust Enrichment. – The Cambridge Law Journal, 2003, № 62.

Grantham, Ross, Rickett, Charles. On the Subsidiarity of Unjust Enrichment. – Law Quarterly Review, 2001, № 117.

Gutteridge, H., David, R. The Doctrine of Unjustified Enrichment. – The Cambridge Law Journal, 1934, № 5.

Hallebeek, Jan. Тhe concept of unjust enrichment in late scholasticism. Nijmegen: Gerard Noodt Instituut, 1996.

Hogg, Martin. Unjustified enrichment in Scots law twenty years on: Where now? – Restitution Law Review, 2006.

Hooker, M., B. Legal. Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press, 1975.

Johnstone, David, Zimmermann, Reinhard. Comparative Law of Unjustified Enrichment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Jooste, Christian, Schrage, Eltjo. Subsidiarity of the General Action for Unjust Enrichment (Part 1), 2016 J. S. Afr. L. 1 (2016).

Kötz, H. The Value of Mixed Jurisdictions. – Tulane Law Revie, 2003.

Krebs, Tomas. In defence of unjust factors. – In: Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. (Ed. by D. Johnston & R. Zimmermann). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

MacQueen, Hector. The Sophistication of Unjustified Enrichment: A Response to Nils Jansen, Edinburgh L. Rev, 2016, № 20, 312–325.

MacQueen, Hector. Unjustified Enrichment, Subsidiarity and Contract. – In: Mixed Jurisdictions Compared: Private Law in Louisiana and Scotland. (Ed. by V. Palmer & E. Reid). Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

MacQueen, Hector, Sellar, William, Hamilton, David. Unjust enrichment in Scots law. – In: Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution (Ed. by Schrage, E.L.J). Duncker & Humblot, 1995.

MacQueen, Hector. Unjustified Enrichment in Mixed Legal Systems. – Restitution Law Review, 2005, № 13.

McInnes, Mitchell. The Canadian Principle of Unjust Enrichment: Comparative Insights into the Law of Restitution. – Alberta Law Review, 1999 № 37.

Meier, Sonja. Unjust Factors and Legal Grounds. – In: Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. (Ed. by D. Johnston & R. Zimmermann). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Michelon, Claudio. Native Sources and Comparative Resources: Unjustified Enrichment in Brazil after the 2002 Civil Code. – Restitution Law Review, 2014.

Nicholas, Barry. Unjust Enrichment and Subsidiarity. – In: Scintillae Iuris, Studi in Memoria di Gino Gorla, Milano.1994, vol. III.

Nicholas, Barry. Unjustified Enrichment in the Civil Law and Louisiana Law. – Tul. L. Rev, 1961–1962, № 36.

Oakes, Jeffrey L. Article 2298, the Codification of the Principle Forbidding Unjust Enrichment, and the Elimination of Quantum Meruit as a Basis for Recovery in Louisiana. – Louisiana Law Review, 1996, № 56, Available from: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol56/iss4/5

Palmer, Vernon Valentine. Two Rival Theories of Mixed Legal Systems. – Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 2008, № 1, Available from: www.ejcl.org/121/art121–16.pdf

Palmer, Vernon Valentine. Mixed Jurisdictions Worldwide : The Third Legal Family. United Kingdom : Cambridge University Press. 2001.

Palmer, Vernon. The Louisiana Civilian Experience: Critiques of Codification in a Mixed Jurisdiction. Carolina: Academic Press. Durham. NC.2005.

Plessis, Jack Du. Comparative Law and the Study of Mixed Legal Systems. – In: The Oxford Handbook of Comparative law. (Ed. by M. Reimann & R. Zimmermann). N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006.

Plessis, Jack Du. Towards a rational structure of liability for unjustified enrichment: thoughts from two mixed jurisdictions. – South Africa Law Journal, 2005, № 122.

Rahmatian, Andreas. Alchemistic Metaphors in Comparative Law: Mixed Legal Systems, Reception of Laws and Legal Transplants, Journal of Civil Law Study, 2018, № 11, Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol11/iss2/2.

Reid, Dot Thomas. Aquinas and Viscount Stair: The influence of scholastic moral theology on Stair’s account of restitution and recompense. – Journal of Legal History, 2008, № 29.

Reid, Kenneth. The Idea of Mixed Legal Systems. – Tulane Law Review, 2003, № 78.

Schlechtriem, P., Coen, Ch., Hornung, R. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment in Europe. – European Review of Private Law, Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands, 2001.

Schrage, Eltjo. The Law of Restitution: the History of Dutch Legislation. – In: Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution (Ed. by Schrage, E.L.J). Berlin : Duncker & Humblot , 1995.

Schrage, Eltjo, Nicholas, Barry. Unjust enrichment and the law of restitution. – In: Unjust Enrichment: The Comparative Legal History of the Law of Restitution (Ed. by Schrage, E.L.J). Berlin : Duncker & Humblot, 1995.

Sellar, William. Unjust Enrichment. – In: The Laws of Scotland: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, 1996, Vol. 15.

Sirena, Pietro. The DCFR – Restitution, Unjust Enrichment and Related Issues. – European Review of Contract Law, 2008, № 4.

Sonnekus, J. C. Unjustified Enrichment in South African Law. South Africa: LexisNexis. 2008.

Tate, Albert. The Louisiana action for unjustified enrichment. Tulane LR, 1976, № 50.

Van Zyl, Deon Hurter. The general enrichment action is alive and well. – Acta Juridica, 1992.

Visser, Daniel. Cultural Forces in the Making of Mixed Legal Systems. – Tulane Law Review, 2003.

Visser, Daniel. Rethinking unjustified enrichment: A perspective of the competition between contractual and enrichment remedies. – Acta Juridica, 1992.

Visser, Daniel. Searches for Silver Bullets: Enrichment in Three-Party Situations. – In: Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. (Ed. by D. Johnston & R. Zimmermann). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Whitty, Nail. Rationality, nationality and the taxonomy of unjustified enrichment. – In: Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. (Ed. by D. Johnston & R. Zimmermann). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Whitty, Nail, Visser, Daniel. Unjustified Enrichment. – In: Mixed Legal Systems in Comparative Perspective: Property and Obligations in Scotland and South Africa.( Ed. by R Zimmermann, D Visser and K Reid), 2004.

Wilburg, W. Die Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung nach österreichischem und deutschen Recht. Graz,1934.

Wolffe, James. Enrichment by improvements in Scots law. – In: Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. (Ed. by D. Johnston & R. Zimmermann). Cambridge.

Zimmermann, Reinhard, Plessis, Jack Du. Basic Features of the German Law of Unjustified Enrichment. – Restitution Law Review, 1994, 14 et sqq.

Zimmermann, Reinhard. The law of obligations. The roman foundation of the civilian Tradition. Cape Town: Juta & co. Ltd, 1990.

Zimmermann, Reinhard. A road through the enrichment-forest? Experiences with a general enrichment action. – Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 1985, № 18.

Zimmermann, Reinhard. Unjustified Enrichment: The Modern Civilian Approach. Oxford Journal for legal studies, 1995, № 15.