Further Issues (6)

Key questions to address even if a claim exists:
- What can the pursuer (P) claim?
- How much can P claim?
- How does unjustified enrichment interact with other legal areas?

Shilliday v Smith (1998) established the following claims:
- Restitution: Return of property (e.g., a car).
- Repetition: Repayment of an equivalent sum of money.
- Recompense: Payment for the value of an intangible benefit, e.g., services rendered.

Conferral of an Undue Benefit: (condictio indebiti) - unjustified benefit transfer.
Benefit for a Future Purpose Failed: (condictio causa data causa non secuta) - benefit with no fulfillment.
Imposition of a Benefit in Good Faith: Conflicts with delict actions (e.g., negligence), breach of contract results in:
- Restitution to the P
- Repetition
- Recompense
- Compensatory Damages
- Specific Implement: Contracts enforcement.
- Interdict: Preventing breaches.

P can recover D's enrichment at P’s expense. The recovery amount depends on:
- Type of claim (imposition vs interference claims).
- Availability of defense based on change of position.

Imposition Claims: Capped at the lesser of D's gain or P's loss (Bell, Principles, para 538).
Interference Claims: No cap on recovery; measured by D's enrichment (Secretary of State for Defence v Johnstone, 1997).

If P makes D’s property into another form, P owes D the pre-transformation value (Oliver and Boyd v Marr Typefounding Co Ltd, 1901).
If P sells D’s property to third parties, D owes P any profit from the sale (Harper Collins Publishers Ltd v Young, 2007).

Credit Lyonnais v George Stevenson & Co Ltd (1901): Key points:
- D had reasonable grounds to believe the enrichment was theirs.
- D acted on that belief, altering their position.
- It would be unjust to require D to return the enrichment.
Recent case: Alliance Trust Savings Ltd v Currie (2016) discusses this doctrine.

In Scots law, unjustified enrichment is subsidiary to:
- Contractual Remedies: A contractual remedy typically precludes unjustified enrichment claims (Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) v CIN Properties, 1998).
- Statutory Remedies: E.g., Transco Plc v Glasgow City Council, 2005.

Exception example: Cantiere San Rocco v Clyde Shipbuilding (1923) for condictio causa data causa non secuta.
Practical examples include Connelly v Simpson (1993) regarding the applicability of subsidiarity.

P enriched D by £150,000 under cohabitation expectation; after separation, a claim failed due to available statutory remedies (Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, s 28).
Contrast with Pert v McCaffrey (2020), which challenged the applicability of Courtney's Executors.

Property Law: Unjustified enrichment serves as corrective means to property law's rigidity; property claims generally preferred if available.
Delict Law: Choice between delict and unjustified enrichment claims.

Rights in rem (real rights): Ownership and subordinate rights, often phrased in terms of ownership.
Rights in personam (personal rights): Obligations from contracts, delict, unjustified enrichment, phrased in terms of duty/burden between creditor and debtor.

Sandra delivers a car worth £100 under a void contract to Jack, who also owes Bill £100.
In Solvency Outcome: Both Sandra and Bill will receive £50 each due to Jack’s limited assets (only £100 total).

If Sandra retains ownership of the car at contract discovery, she can recover the car as a right in property law (vindicatio), negating unjustified enrichment reliance.

Shows the preference for unjustified enrichment claims over property claims for easier substantiation.

Unjustified enrichment claims enable various legal remedies based on received benefits' nature.
Recovery measures focus on defender’s enrichment at pursuer’s expense but differ by context and claim type.
General rule: Existing contractual/statutory claims preclude unjustified enrichment claims; however, property and delict claims coexist without nullifying unjustified enrichment.