CLASS 7 Unjust Enrichment

CLASS 7 Unjust Enrichment

Art. 1493-1496 C.c.Q.

Art. 1493: A person who is enriched at the expense of another shall, to the extent of his enrichment, indemnify the other for his correlative impoverishment, if there is no justification for the enrichment or the impoverishment.

1. 
   From the performance of an obligation;
   
2. 
   From the failure of the person impoverished to exercise a right of which he may avail himself or could have availed himself against the person enriched;
   
3. 
   From an act performed by the person impoverished
   

-at his own risk and peril, or

-with a constant liberal intention.
Art. 1495: An indemnity is due only if the enrichment continues to exist on the day of the demand.

-both the value of the enrichment and that of the impoverishment are assessed on the day of the demand;

-the exception  when the enriched person was in bad faith, the assessment could be based on the time the person was enriched.
Art. 1496: action against the 3P by the person impoverished:

1. when the person enriched disposes of his enrichment gratuitously, with no intention of defrauding the person impoverished;

2. the 3P beneficiary could have known of the impoverishment.
General Introduction:

• 
  L’enrichissement injustifié : n’est ni un régime basé sur la faute ni contractuel : il est entre les 2, c’est un régime autonome d’obligations ou quasi-contrats. Nom bizarre puisqu’il y a une ressemblance avec les K –voir Terrasses et Viger
  
• 
  Le principe qui régit les relations K’elles en terme de protection est celui de protéger les attentes des partis alors que unjust enrichment est plus un fait juridique qu’une action juridique.
  
• 
  Until 1994, there was no codal reference at all. CCQ was completely silent on unjust enrichment. Viger [1977] and Soucisse [1981] are sources of jurisprudential codification creating an obligation of good faith and a rule for equity: principle being that “ nobody can be enriched w/o justification”
  
• 
  Today, the principle of unjust enrichment has been codified in art. 1493 – 1496
  
• 
  Art. 427 is also based on unjust enrichment from a spouse to another one where a compensatory allowance after divorce is given to compensate enrichment of one patrimony to another one. ! but this only applies to married couples. De facto unions have a remedy only if unjust enrichment is proven (see Langevin case)
  
• 
  unjust enrichment can apply to: family situation w/ children, common law spouses, commercial settings.
  
• 
  It seeks to re-adjust patrimonies at the expense of others.
  
• 
  Issue: should it be neutral or should we penalize parties if they’re at fault? Some say yes others no (see French article).
  

1. 
   enrichment: doesn’t have to be money all the time. Can be added value to property (Trottier and Viger) or free work from son or common law spouse.
   

2. 
   Impoverishment :
   

If – you’re not getting paid for the work you’ve done (ce que dit Corbeil mieux illustrée par Terrasses) = manqué à gagner.

In all these cases, creditors are impoverished.

Tout comme l’enrichissement, l’appauvrissement doit s’évaluer en $ et s’apprécie au jour de la demande et non au jour ou a été subi.

3. 
   Correlation btwn the 2: that’s the link that was missing in Corbeil but well established in Trottier. We cannot prove that Co got enriched by virtue of her work. In fact he got enriched but not the Co. Had she sued him instead of the Co she might have won. Comptoirs no good target. This case shows that you can’t have a situation where the link is indirect. However, when you look at Viger, it seems that this correlation doesn’t need to be direct, so how did we obtain this result with Corbeil?
   

Baudouin répond en disant: il n’est pas nécessaire de recourir au concept traditionnel de la causalité ni de rechercher si l’appauvrissement a été la causa causans ou causa proxima de l’enrichissement. Il suffit juste de démontrer une correspondance entre les 2 que sans cette enrichissement, l’appauvrissement n’aurait pas eu lieu. La détermination d’un lien de causalité serait une Q de fait laissée à l’appréciation du tribunal.

= Corbeil Saumure

K1

City K2
Here she could not win b/c even if indirect Comptoirs has not been enriched it’s Saumure. Also love failed the all thing b/c justifies her motivation. Not like viger. This link shows that you only get what you lost. In Terrasses he lost his time but relied on a promise that’s recognized in 1395 (promesse explicite)

4. 
   Absence of justification.
   

Facilement prouvé par un K, obligation légale, agir pour son propre I ou risque, intention libérale.

Le cas du K:

1. 
   If you contract to sell your car 5000$ and you screw the buyer, that’s ok. Unjust enrichment cannot do anything b/c you have a remedy in law of K. In Viger, they couldn’t ask for this remedy b/c K was void, ends up to be invalidated!
   
2. 
   If I donate my time and effort to you and that I get empoverished, it’s intention libérale: I agree to do s/t for you for free. If it’s proved action for in rem verso fails. Q: how do you distinguish in such personal situations btwn intention libérale and expectations [1395] like Trottier? A: She says she has a problem with Langevin, b/c – justement- the guy said that he did that in the expectation to have half of the house. Difficult to reconcile with Corbeil (?)
   
3. 
   Acting at your own risk: very controversial
   

5. 
   Absence de fraude à la loi: if you try to evade the law: you can’t avail yourself to exercise a right against the enriched one that you could have exercised in a reasonable period. You can sue someone for a right that you already had before [1494]
   
6. 
   absence d’autres recours: if other remedy, unjust enrichment fails. Should Giguère sue the city Xtra-K’ally in torts he would not have the remedy of u.e.
   

Both are other reasons for justification.