Priyanka Bhattacharyya, Amity Law School, Kolkata
The concept of unjust enrichment was founded in English law on the principle of assumpsit, or "had and received," The doctrine of unjust enrichment is general equitable principle which states that no person should be allowed to profit at another's expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. The law restrains a person from being benefitted at the expense of another and this principle has been invoked to rationalise the right to restitution in a number of cases which fall outside the provinces of contract obligation. The Unjust enrichment and its undeserved misery led to economic imbalanced situation, and it is both independent and related to each other. The former connotes a helpless condition originating from a lack of access to resources without justifications, whereas the latter connotes a helpless situation arising from a lack of access to resources without justifications. The Lord Mansfield has stated it in a well-known case that the gist of this type of action is that the defendant is obligated to restore the money depending on the facts of the case. Many Scholars and Authors have endeavoured to explain and understand the essence of unjust enrichment which owes an obligation on the person who has been enriched at the expense of another1. Despite its relatively recent origins, it is one of the most widely contested private law topics in today's world.
KEYWORDS: unjust enrichment, restitution, consideration, misery, and legal obligation.