英国准合同制度的演变之路——英美法系返还法的滥觞
|
摘要
准合同制度是近代英国法中对应于大陆法系不当得利制度的一种返还性救济。本文试图通过英国普通法与衡平法的比较,考察准合同制度在英国法中的历史演变,首先介绍"借债之诉"和"账目之诉"等返还令状,然后梳理"允诺之诉"及其他"准合同性"普通法诉讼格式,如可追索金钱之诉等;进而突出曼斯菲尔德勋爵对英国法中准合同制度的影响,即将衡平法的观念引入准合同制度之中;最后联系普通法与衡平法融合的大背景,研究理论界重提的默示合同理论,分析英国法不当得利概念的成型和准合同制度的没落,从而指出英美法系与大陆法系在不当利益返还这一领域上殊途同归。
Quasi-contract is a restitutionary remedy in the modern history of English law,served as a counterpart of unjust enrichment in civil law countries. This article is to study the evolution of quasicontract in the context of post-medieval English law with the practices of common law and equity law.Firstly two typical medieval writs of recovery —Action of Debt and Action of Account —are introduced;then Assumpsit is speculated. Secondly,attention is paid to the contribution of Lord Mansfield on quasi-contract,i. e. introducing the notion of equity into quasi-contract. Thirdly,given the integration of common law and equity law and the theory of implied contract,the emergence of unjust enrichment and the demise of quasi-contract in English law are explored. Finally,it is concluded that within the domain of restitution law,common law system and civil law system have actually reached the same goal via different routes.
Quasi-contract is a restitutionary remedy in the modern history of English law,served as a counterpart of unjust enrichment in civil law countries. This article is to study the evolution of quasicontract in the context of post-medieval English law with the practices of common law and equity law.Firstly two typical medieval writs of recovery —Action of Debt and Action of Account —are introduced;then Assumpsit is speculated. Secondly,attention is paid to the contribution of Lord Mansfield on quasi-contract,i. e. introducing the notion of equity into quasi-contract. Thirdly,given the integration of common law and equity law and the theory of implied contract,the emergence of unjust enrichment and the demise of quasi-contract in English law are explored. Finally,it is concluded that within the domain of restitution law,common law system and civil law system have actually reached the same goal via different routes.
引文
[1]虽然不当得利作为债的发生原因之一已成为我国学者的普遍共识,然而,就我国现行法而言,针对不当得利的法律规范相当匮乏,基本上仅仅体现在《中华人民共和国民法通则》第92条,即“没有合法根据,取得不当利益,造成他人损失的,应当将取得的不当利益返还受损失的人”。过于抽象和简略的立法,直接导致法律适用上的混乱和难度。
[2]王泽鉴:《债法原理·不当得利》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第7页。
[3]Stephen A.Smith,Taking Law Seriously,50 U.Toronto L.J.241,256-257(2000).
[4]洪学军:《不当得利制度研究》,中国检察出版社2004年版,第27页。
[5]依据《民法大全》(Corpus Juris Civilis),罗马法中的债可划分为“契约之债”(ex contractu)、“私犯之债”(ex delicto)、“准契约之债”(quasi ex contractu)与“准私犯之债”(quasi ex delicto)等四类。[英]巴里·尼古拉斯:《罗马法概论》,黄风译,法律出版社2000年版,第235页。
[6]Bryan A.Garner,Black’s Law Dictionary 1276(8th ed.,West Group 2004).
[7]Id.
[8]在罗马法中,返还诉权(condictio)是主张市民法债权但不载明请求原因的一种对人诉讼,一般用于受损害一方从另一方获得财产增加部分的返还而提起的诉讼。这是一种程序法上的诉权,其救济的效果主要是回复原状,其诉讼基础不是原告提出的某类请求原因,而是被告没有保留该项得益的充分理由。可参见[意]皮德罗·彭梵得:《罗马法教科书》,中国政法大学出版社1992年版,第398页;[古罗马]查士丁尼:《法学总论》,商务印书馆1989年版,第53页。
[9]Reinhard Zimmermann,The Law of Obligations:Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition 9(Oxford University Press 1992).
[10]如见于《圣经·马太福音》、《出埃及记》、《申命记》中的戒律及《摩西十诫》中的“不可偷盗”(Thou shalt not steal)、“不可贪图邻人的房产”、“不可贪爱邻人的妻子、奴婢、牛驴或他的任何东西”等戒令。
[11]包括Norsemen,Scandinavia,Vikings,Angles,Saxons,Jutes,Danes和其他各族人的家族法。
[12]“普通法自14世纪到17世纪有一个显著的持续发展时期;许多诉讼形式逐渐消亡并且被遗忘了,而另一些诉讼形式却枝繁叶茂,一些分支随着时间的推移而趋于独立,它们转而导致新的发展。”Frederic William Maitland,The Form of Actions at Common Law 53,65(Cambridge University Press 1936).
[13]“西欧的前期注释法学家和后期注释法学家试图采用罗马法律史的最终成果并据为己有时,英格兰却在不自觉地重复罗马法的那段历史。”F.Pollock&F.W.Maitland,The History of English Law before the Time of EdwardⅠ558(2d ed.,Cambridge University Press 1898).
[14]David Ibbetson,A Historic Introduction to the Law of Obligation 265(Oxford University Press 1999);David Ibbetson,Unjust Enrichment in England before 1600,in Unjust Enrichment 121-124(E.J.H.Schrage ed.,2d ed.,Berlin 1995).
[15]Benjamin J.Shipman,Handbook of Common-Law Pleading 132(BiblioLife 2008).
[16]Id.at 144.
[17]这种诉讼相当于普通法上的借债之诉(基于盖印文件),但还可以支持口头借债。See Bryan A.Garner,Black’s Law Dictionary1828(8th ed.,West Group 2004).
[18]Goff&Jones,The Law of Restitution 6(7th ed.,Sweet&Maxwell 2007).
[19]James Barr Ames,The History of Assumpsit,2 Harv.L.Rew.1,58(1888).“Services would be rendered,for example,by a tailor or other workman,an innkeeper or common carrier,without any agreement as to the amount of compensation.Such cases present no difficulty at present day,but for centuries there was no common law action by which compensation could be recovered.”
[20]“wager of law”是中世纪的一种裁判方法,被许多侵入罗马帝国的蛮族和部落采用。根据这种裁判方式,被告用誓言驳斥原告的指控,并且找来11个邻人宣誓证明其无辜,即可胜诉。参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1410页。
[21]与King’s Bench和Common Pleas一起共同组成早期的英国王室法院(the King’s Court,the Curia Regis),Exchequer Chamber于1958年筹建,有权审查王座法庭的判决。
[22]4 Co.Rep.92a.200,202(1602).
[23]J.H.Baker,The Use of Assumpsit for Restitutionary Money Claims 1600-1800,in Unjust Enrichment 31(E.J.H.Schrage ed.,2d ed.,Berlin 1995).
[24]2 Brownl.254,254(1609).
[25]8 Co.Rep.146,147,per Coke C.J.(1610).
[26]David Ibbetson,A Historic Introduction to the Law of Obligation 269(Oxford University Press 1999).
[27]Moo 584,584,1 Rolle 390,391(B&M 465)(1616).档案材料显示,该案所构成的可追索金钱之诉包括以下四个要素:(1)双方账目清楚列明;(2)金钱实际支付;(3)基于用益制,被告替原告收受了来自若干无记名人士的金钱,总计达24英镑;(4)基于原告所设定的用益制,被告收取某人一笔20英镑的款项。G.H.Jones,W.R.Cornish&Graham Virgo,Restitution:Past,Present,and Future 48(Hart Publishing 1998).
[28]Goff&Jones,The Law of Restitution 3(7th ed.,Sweet&Maxwell 2007).可参考Bryan A.Garner,Black’s Law Dictionary 1276(8th ed.,West Group 2004)action下action for money had and received一条。
[29]Jacob v.Allen 1 Salk 27,27(1703);Cock v.Vivian W.Kel 203,205(1734).
[30]2 Burr 1005,97 ER 670,676;1 Wm Bla 210,219(1760).
[31]W.Holdsworth,A History of English Law vol.9,97(London,Methuen 1926);Winfield,The Province of the Law of Tort 127(Cambridge University Press 1931);CHS Fifoot,Lord Mansfield 141(Oxford University Press 1936);R.M.Jackson,The History of Quasi-Contract in English Law 117-119(Cambridge University Press 1936);J.P.Dawson,Unjust Enrichment:A Comparative Analysis 11-15(Little Brown and Co.1951);P.Winfield,The Law of Quasi-Contract 9(Sweet&Maxwell 1952);P.Birks,English and Roman Learning in Moses v.Macferlan 37(Cambridge University Press 1984);P.Birks&G.McLeod,The Implied Contract Theory of Quasi-Contract:Civilian Opinion Current in the Century Before Blackstone,OJLS 46,55-57(1986);J.Oldham,The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century vol.1,226-227(University of North Carolina Press 1992);Restitutions Past,Present and Future.Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones 38(W.Cornish et al.eds.,Hart 1998);David Ibbetson,A Historic Introduction to the Law of Obligation 272(Oxford University Press 1999);J.H.Baker,The Common Law Tradition Lawyers,Books and the Law 287(Hambledon 2000);J.H.Baker,An Introduction to English Legal History 375-376(4th ed.,Butterworths 2002);S.Waddams,Dimensions of Private Law Categories and Concepts in Anglo-American Legal Reasoning 162(Cambridge University Press2003);J.Oldham,English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield 87-93(University of North Carolina Press 2004);P.Birks,Unjust Enrichment 5,13-15,40-41,118,208,233,257-8,270,275,289-90(Oxford University Press 2005).
[32]当时的“良心法庭”是一种小额债务法庭。See W.Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England vol.3,81-83(Clarendon Press 1768);M.Finn,The Character of Credit in English Culture 1740-1914,197-235(Cambridge University Press 2003).曼斯菲尔德勋爵认为其兼具衡平法和普通法的法域。
[33]2 Burr 1008,1008-1009,97 ER 678,678(1760).
[34]Henry Home&Lord Kames,Principles of Equity 9(Edinburgh A Kincaid 1760).
[35][德]K.茨威格特、H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典、米健、高鸿钧、贺卫方译,法律出版社2003年版,第285页。
[36]LI MS Misc 129,129(unfol)(1757).此案是针对担保所提出的已付金钱之诉(action for money paid against surety)。
[37]可结合衡平法是“大法官的脚”(Chancellor’s foot)这种高度的属人性和不确定性去理解。See H.Potter,An Introduction to the History of English Law 229(2d ed.,Oxford University Press 1926).
[38]基于错误的金钱返还:Cox v.Prentice(1814)3 M&S 344,348,105 ER 641,641;基于欺诈的金钱返还:Colt v.Woollaston(1723)2 P Wms 154,24 ER 679,680。
[39](1774)1 Cowp 197,199-200;98 ER 1041,1042-1043;Lofft 756,758.
[40]支持一方的代表有R.M.Jackson,即认为由于可追索金钱之诉属于允诺之诉,从默示合同理论发展而来,因而不可避免地具有合同性,可参见其著作:The History of Quasi-Contract in English Law 19(Cambridge University Press 1936)。而反对一方的代表有Peter Birks,他认为曼斯菲尔德勋爵更具雄心壮志,他把可追索金钱之诉与罗马法中的“准契约”相提并论,实际上就在否定可追索金钱之诉根源于所谓的默示合同,相反,他认为这种诉讼的基础在于罗马法中的自然之债(obligatio naturalis),区别于合同,可参见其著作:English and Roman Learning in Moses v.Macferlan 37(Cambridge University Press 1984)。
[41]“great friend to the action”,Weston v.Downes 1 Doug 23,24(1778);Longchamp v.Keeny 1 Doug 137,137(1778).
[42]Sadler v.Evans(1766)4 Burr 1984,1986.
[43]Warren Swain,Cutter v.Powell and the Pleading of Claims of Unjust Enrichment(2003)RLR 46,51.
[44](1795)6 TR,1001 ER 320,573.
[45]J.Beatson,Restitution and Contract:Non-Cumul?1 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 83,88(2001);Andrew M.Tettenborn,Subsisting Contract and Failure of Consideration-A Little Scepticism,1 Restitution Law Review 35,42(2002);R Cunnington,Failure of Basis,Lloyds Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 234,248-251(2004).
[46]Baker,The History of Quasi-Contract in English Law,in Restitution:Past,Present and Future 53(Cornish et al.eds.,Hart Publishing1998).
[47]2 Burr 1003,1005(1760).
[48]F.W.Maitland,The Form of Actions at Common Law 81(Cambridge University Press 1936).
[49]Sinclair v.Brougham(1914)A.C.398.在该案中,上议院(House of Lords)最终认定,可追索金钱之诉的基础在于默示合同,但由于“房屋协会”不是银行,不具备开展储蓄业务的资质,储户与该“房屋协会”所签订的储蓄协议根本就是越权合同(ultra vires contract),即使可以从法律上(de jure)拟制偿还承诺,也不足以在事实上(de facto)找到支持该返还请求的理由,因为无论是否是在可追索金钱之诉中,越权合同都是绝对无效的。
[50]如Lord Sumner称之为“有时易于被界定为‘人际正义’的含糊法理”,见:Baylis v.Bishop of London 1 Ch.127,140(1913);Scrutton LJ称其为“思想的严重偏差”,见:Holt v.Markham 1 K.B.504,513(1923)。
[51]United Australia Ltd.v.Barclays Bank Ltd.,A.C.1,28-29(1941).
[52]Brook’s Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd.v.Goodman Bros.1 K.B.534,545(1937);Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v.Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd.,A.C.32,63(1943).
[53]Kiriri Cotton Co.v.Dewani,A.C.192,294(1960).
[54]Nissan v.Att.-Gen.,A.C.179,228(1970).
[55]例如:Cowern v.Neild 2 K.B.400,419(1912);Sinclair v.Brougham,A.C.390,398(1914).
[56]Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v.Islington London Borough Council,A.C.514.2 All E.R.,514,961(1996).
[57]Sinclair v.Brougham,A.C.398,398(1914).
[58][德]K.茨威格特、H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典、米健、高鸿钧、贺卫方译,法律出版社2003年版,第279页。
[59]Orakpo v.Manson Investments Ltd.,A.C.95,104(1978).
[60]F.C.Woodward,The Law of Quasi Contract 35(Little Brown Co.1913).
[61]Restatement of the Law of Restitution Quasi-Contracts and Constructive Trusts,American Law Institute(1937).
[62]“Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort,and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution.”Lord Wright,Restatement of the Law of Restitution,51Harvard Law Review 369,370(1937);Lord Wright,Sinclair v.Brougham,6 Cambridge Law Journal 305,305(1938).For a discussion of Lord Wright generally,see Neil Duxbury,Lord Wright and Innovative Traditionalism,59 University of Toronto Law Journal 265,265(2009).
[63](No.2)1 WLR 783,799(1979).
[64]2 A.C 548(HL)558(Lord Bridge),559(Lord Templeman),568(Lord Ackner),578(Lord Goff)(1991).
[65]The case:“was the first case in which the House of lords fully recognised the principle against unjust enrichment:not only did their Lordships use the language of unjust enrichment but,more specifically,the defence of change of position was accepted for the first time and that defence can only be rationalised through unjust enrichment reasoning.”A.Burows,E.Mckendrick&J.Edelman,Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution 39(2d ed.,Oxford University Press 2007).
[66]Banque Financiere de la Citév.Pare(Battersea)Ltd.,A.C.221,227(1999).
[67]著名不当得利学者Peter Birks即为持这一观点的代表人物,参见其重要的教科书:An Introduction to the Law of Restitution 13(Clarendon Press 1985)。
[68]Ernst Rabel,Private Laws of Western Civilization,10 Louisiana Law Review 1,14(1949-1950).
[2]王泽鉴:《债法原理·不当得利》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版,第7页。
[3]Stephen A.Smith,Taking Law Seriously,50 U.Toronto L.J.241,256-257(2000).
[4]洪学军:《不当得利制度研究》,中国检察出版社2004年版,第27页。
[5]依据《民法大全》(Corpus Juris Civilis),罗马法中的债可划分为“契约之债”(ex contractu)、“私犯之债”(ex delicto)、“准契约之债”(quasi ex contractu)与“准私犯之债”(quasi ex delicto)等四类。[英]巴里·尼古拉斯:《罗马法概论》,黄风译,法律出版社2000年版,第235页。
[6]Bryan A.Garner,Black’s Law Dictionary 1276(8th ed.,West Group 2004).
[7]Id.
[8]在罗马法中,返还诉权(condictio)是主张市民法债权但不载明请求原因的一种对人诉讼,一般用于受损害一方从另一方获得财产增加部分的返还而提起的诉讼。这是一种程序法上的诉权,其救济的效果主要是回复原状,其诉讼基础不是原告提出的某类请求原因,而是被告没有保留该项得益的充分理由。可参见[意]皮德罗·彭梵得:《罗马法教科书》,中国政法大学出版社1992年版,第398页;[古罗马]查士丁尼:《法学总论》,商务印书馆1989年版,第53页。
[9]Reinhard Zimmermann,The Law of Obligations:Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition 9(Oxford University Press 1992).
[10]如见于《圣经·马太福音》、《出埃及记》、《申命记》中的戒律及《摩西十诫》中的“不可偷盗”(Thou shalt not steal)、“不可贪图邻人的房产”、“不可贪爱邻人的妻子、奴婢、牛驴或他的任何东西”等戒令。
[11]包括Norsemen,Scandinavia,Vikings,Angles,Saxons,Jutes,Danes和其他各族人的家族法。
[12]“普通法自14世纪到17世纪有一个显著的持续发展时期;许多诉讼形式逐渐消亡并且被遗忘了,而另一些诉讼形式却枝繁叶茂,一些分支随着时间的推移而趋于独立,它们转而导致新的发展。”Frederic William Maitland,The Form of Actions at Common Law 53,65(Cambridge University Press 1936).
[13]“西欧的前期注释法学家和后期注释法学家试图采用罗马法律史的最终成果并据为己有时,英格兰却在不自觉地重复罗马法的那段历史。”F.Pollock&F.W.Maitland,The History of English Law before the Time of EdwardⅠ558(2d ed.,Cambridge University Press 1898).
[14]David Ibbetson,A Historic Introduction to the Law of Obligation 265(Oxford University Press 1999);David Ibbetson,Unjust Enrichment in England before 1600,in Unjust Enrichment 121-124(E.J.H.Schrage ed.,2d ed.,Berlin 1995).
[15]Benjamin J.Shipman,Handbook of Common-Law Pleading 132(BiblioLife 2008).
[16]Id.at 144.
[17]这种诉讼相当于普通法上的借债之诉(基于盖印文件),但还可以支持口头借债。See Bryan A.Garner,Black’s Law Dictionary1828(8th ed.,West Group 2004).
[18]Goff&Jones,The Law of Restitution 6(7th ed.,Sweet&Maxwell 2007).
[19]James Barr Ames,The History of Assumpsit,2 Harv.L.Rew.1,58(1888).“Services would be rendered,for example,by a tailor or other workman,an innkeeper or common carrier,without any agreement as to the amount of compensation.Such cases present no difficulty at present day,but for centuries there was no common law action by which compensation could be recovered.”
[20]“wager of law”是中世纪的一种裁判方法,被许多侵入罗马帝国的蛮族和部落采用。根据这种裁判方式,被告用誓言驳斥原告的指控,并且找来11个邻人宣誓证明其无辜,即可胜诉。参见薛波主编:《元照英美法词典》,法律出版社2003年版,第1410页。
[21]与King’s Bench和Common Pleas一起共同组成早期的英国王室法院(the King’s Court,the Curia Regis),Exchequer Chamber于1958年筹建,有权审查王座法庭的判决。
[22]4 Co.Rep.92a.200,202(1602).
[23]J.H.Baker,The Use of Assumpsit for Restitutionary Money Claims 1600-1800,in Unjust Enrichment 31(E.J.H.Schrage ed.,2d ed.,Berlin 1995).
[24]2 Brownl.254,254(1609).
[25]8 Co.Rep.146,147,per Coke C.J.(1610).
[26]David Ibbetson,A Historic Introduction to the Law of Obligation 269(Oxford University Press 1999).
[27]Moo 584,584,1 Rolle 390,391(B&M 465)(1616).档案材料显示,该案所构成的可追索金钱之诉包括以下四个要素:(1)双方账目清楚列明;(2)金钱实际支付;(3)基于用益制,被告替原告收受了来自若干无记名人士的金钱,总计达24英镑;(4)基于原告所设定的用益制,被告收取某人一笔20英镑的款项。G.H.Jones,W.R.Cornish&Graham Virgo,Restitution:Past,Present,and Future 48(Hart Publishing 1998).
[28]Goff&Jones,The Law of Restitution 3(7th ed.,Sweet&Maxwell 2007).可参考Bryan A.Garner,Black’s Law Dictionary 1276(8th ed.,West Group 2004)action下action for money had and received一条。
[29]Jacob v.Allen 1 Salk 27,27(1703);Cock v.Vivian W.Kel 203,205(1734).
[30]2 Burr 1005,97 ER 670,676;1 Wm Bla 210,219(1760).
[31]W.Holdsworth,A History of English Law vol.9,97(London,Methuen 1926);Winfield,The Province of the Law of Tort 127(Cambridge University Press 1931);CHS Fifoot,Lord Mansfield 141(Oxford University Press 1936);R.M.Jackson,The History of Quasi-Contract in English Law 117-119(Cambridge University Press 1936);J.P.Dawson,Unjust Enrichment:A Comparative Analysis 11-15(Little Brown and Co.1951);P.Winfield,The Law of Quasi-Contract 9(Sweet&Maxwell 1952);P.Birks,English and Roman Learning in Moses v.Macferlan 37(Cambridge University Press 1984);P.Birks&G.McLeod,The Implied Contract Theory of Quasi-Contract:Civilian Opinion Current in the Century Before Blackstone,OJLS 46,55-57(1986);J.Oldham,The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century vol.1,226-227(University of North Carolina Press 1992);Restitutions Past,Present and Future.Essays in Honour of Gareth Jones 38(W.Cornish et al.eds.,Hart 1998);David Ibbetson,A Historic Introduction to the Law of Obligation 272(Oxford University Press 1999);J.H.Baker,The Common Law Tradition Lawyers,Books and the Law 287(Hambledon 2000);J.H.Baker,An Introduction to English Legal History 375-376(4th ed.,Butterworths 2002);S.Waddams,Dimensions of Private Law Categories and Concepts in Anglo-American Legal Reasoning 162(Cambridge University Press2003);J.Oldham,English Common Law in the Age of Mansfield 87-93(University of North Carolina Press 2004);P.Birks,Unjust Enrichment 5,13-15,40-41,118,208,233,257-8,270,275,289-90(Oxford University Press 2005).
[32]当时的“良心法庭”是一种小额债务法庭。See W.Blackstone,Commentaries on the Laws of England vol.3,81-83(Clarendon Press 1768);M.Finn,The Character of Credit in English Culture 1740-1914,197-235(Cambridge University Press 2003).曼斯菲尔德勋爵认为其兼具衡平法和普通法的法域。
[33]2 Burr 1008,1008-1009,97 ER 678,678(1760).
[34]Henry Home&Lord Kames,Principles of Equity 9(Edinburgh A Kincaid 1760).
[35][德]K.茨威格特、H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典、米健、高鸿钧、贺卫方译,法律出版社2003年版,第285页。
[36]LI MS Misc 129,129(unfol)(1757).此案是针对担保所提出的已付金钱之诉(action for money paid against surety)。
[37]可结合衡平法是“大法官的脚”(Chancellor’s foot)这种高度的属人性和不确定性去理解。See H.Potter,An Introduction to the History of English Law 229(2d ed.,Oxford University Press 1926).
[38]基于错误的金钱返还:Cox v.Prentice(1814)3 M&S 344,348,105 ER 641,641;基于欺诈的金钱返还:Colt v.Woollaston(1723)2 P Wms 154,24 ER 679,680。
[39](1774)1 Cowp 197,199-200;98 ER 1041,1042-1043;Lofft 756,758.
[40]支持一方的代表有R.M.Jackson,即认为由于可追索金钱之诉属于允诺之诉,从默示合同理论发展而来,因而不可避免地具有合同性,可参见其著作:The History of Quasi-Contract in English Law 19(Cambridge University Press 1936)。而反对一方的代表有Peter Birks,他认为曼斯菲尔德勋爵更具雄心壮志,他把可追索金钱之诉与罗马法中的“准契约”相提并论,实际上就在否定可追索金钱之诉根源于所谓的默示合同,相反,他认为这种诉讼的基础在于罗马法中的自然之债(obligatio naturalis),区别于合同,可参见其著作:English and Roman Learning in Moses v.Macferlan 37(Cambridge University Press 1984)。
[41]“great friend to the action”,Weston v.Downes 1 Doug 23,24(1778);Longchamp v.Keeny 1 Doug 137,137(1778).
[42]Sadler v.Evans(1766)4 Burr 1984,1986.
[43]Warren Swain,Cutter v.Powell and the Pleading of Claims of Unjust Enrichment(2003)RLR 46,51.
[44](1795)6 TR,1001 ER 320,573.
[45]J.Beatson,Restitution and Contract:Non-Cumul?1 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 83,88(2001);Andrew M.Tettenborn,Subsisting Contract and Failure of Consideration-A Little Scepticism,1 Restitution Law Review 35,42(2002);R Cunnington,Failure of Basis,Lloyds Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 234,248-251(2004).
[46]Baker,The History of Quasi-Contract in English Law,in Restitution:Past,Present and Future 53(Cornish et al.eds.,Hart Publishing1998).
[47]2 Burr 1003,1005(1760).
[48]F.W.Maitland,The Form of Actions at Common Law 81(Cambridge University Press 1936).
[49]Sinclair v.Brougham(1914)A.C.398.在该案中,上议院(House of Lords)最终认定,可追索金钱之诉的基础在于默示合同,但由于“房屋协会”不是银行,不具备开展储蓄业务的资质,储户与该“房屋协会”所签订的储蓄协议根本就是越权合同(ultra vires contract),即使可以从法律上(de jure)拟制偿还承诺,也不足以在事实上(de facto)找到支持该返还请求的理由,因为无论是否是在可追索金钱之诉中,越权合同都是绝对无效的。
[50]如Lord Sumner称之为“有时易于被界定为‘人际正义’的含糊法理”,见:Baylis v.Bishop of London 1 Ch.127,140(1913);Scrutton LJ称其为“思想的严重偏差”,见:Holt v.Markham 1 K.B.504,513(1923)。
[51]United Australia Ltd.v.Barclays Bank Ltd.,A.C.1,28-29(1941).
[52]Brook’s Wharf and Bull Wharf Ltd.v.Goodman Bros.1 K.B.534,545(1937);Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v.Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd.,A.C.32,63(1943).
[53]Kiriri Cotton Co.v.Dewani,A.C.192,294(1960).
[54]Nissan v.Att.-Gen.,A.C.179,228(1970).
[55]例如:Cowern v.Neild 2 K.B.400,419(1912);Sinclair v.Brougham,A.C.390,398(1914).
[56]Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v.Islington London Borough Council,A.C.514.2 All E.R.,514,961(1996).
[57]Sinclair v.Brougham,A.C.398,398(1914).
[58][德]K.茨威格特、H.克茨:《比较法总论》,潘汉典、米健、高鸿钧、贺卫方译,法律出版社2003年版,第279页。
[59]Orakpo v.Manson Investments Ltd.,A.C.95,104(1978).
[60]F.C.Woodward,The Law of Quasi Contract 35(Little Brown Co.1913).
[61]Restatement of the Law of Restitution Quasi-Contracts and Constructive Trusts,American Law Institute(1937).
[62]“Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort,and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution.”Lord Wright,Restatement of the Law of Restitution,51Harvard Law Review 369,370(1937);Lord Wright,Sinclair v.Brougham,6 Cambridge Law Journal 305,305(1938).For a discussion of Lord Wright generally,see Neil Duxbury,Lord Wright and Innovative Traditionalism,59 University of Toronto Law Journal 265,265(2009).
[63](No.2)1 WLR 783,799(1979).
[64]2 A.C 548(HL)558(Lord Bridge),559(Lord Templeman),568(Lord Ackner),578(Lord Goff)(1991).
[65]The case:“was the first case in which the House of lords fully recognised the principle against unjust enrichment:not only did their Lordships use the language of unjust enrichment but,more specifically,the defence of change of position was accepted for the first time and that defence can only be rationalised through unjust enrichment reasoning.”A.Burows,E.Mckendrick&J.Edelman,Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution 39(2d ed.,Oxford University Press 2007).
[66]Banque Financiere de la Citév.Pare(Battersea)Ltd.,A.C.221,227(1999).
[67]著名不当得利学者Peter Birks即为持这一观点的代表人物,参见其重要的教科书:An Introduction to the Law of Restitution 13(Clarendon Press 1985)。
[68]Ernst Rabel,Private Laws of Western Civilization,10 Louisiana Law Review 1,14(1949-1950).