The contractor can bring an action de in rem verso to recover the value of the work performed because there was no contract in place and the contractor has no other adequate remedy at law. The contractor can bring an action de in rem verso to recover the value of the work performed.Įxplanation: In this example, the contractor was enriched by performing work on the property, but the property owner was also enriched by receiving the benefit of the work. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant was enriched, that the enrichment caused an impoverishment, that there is no justification for the enrichment and impoverishment, and that the plaintiff has no other adequate remedy at law.Įxample: An example of an action de in rem verso is when a contractor performs work on a property without a contract and the property owner benefits from the work. It is a type of civil action where the plaintiff seeks to recover money that was applied to the defendant's advantage. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that the Supreme Court has issued a number of positive rulings on “actio de in rem verso” after the 2002 ruling which denies.Definition: Action de in rem verso is a legal term that refers to an action for unjust enrichment. Regardless of their legislative intent, this provision represents a typical “actio de in rem verso” between persons who are not parties to a contract. Article 747 (2) of the Korean Civil Code provides that the first loser has the right to claim for unjust enrichment against the beneficiary who knows that there is no legal cause and acquires a benefit of a free from intermediary. I think it is necessary to review “actio de in rem verso” positively if considering the theoretical aspect of the law in order to solve the legal relationship in Korean civil law. Role of the peculium clause and the de in rem verso clause in situations of a plurality of Successors analysis of D.15,1,30, 1, and 2 and 3 in Ulpiano 29 ad ed. Nevertheless, it is questionable that our theories and precedents to deny “actio de in rem verso” because this right is not in accordance with the principles of contract law. Palabras clave: Pluralidad de herederos actio de peculio actio de in rem verso nomina hereditària ipso iure divisa sunt. The recognition of this right shall then depend on whether it has met the requirements for establishing the right to claim for unjust enrichment. However, as we have seen earlier, “actio de in rem verso” only have the nature of the right to claim unjust enrichment and return since common law. The Supreme Court has denied the “actio de in rem verso” on this ground. This violates the right of defense that the beneficiary can assert against the intermediary. This makes the loser superior to the general creditors of the intermediary. The loser passes the risk of the contract to the beneficiary. This is because it is contrary to the basic principle of contract law. Our Supreme Court completely denied the “actio de in rem verso” in 2002. Currently in Germany, France, Japan, and Korea, this is also discussed as part of the claim for the return of unjust enrichment. ![]() Then, the “actio de in rem verso” were no longer dealt with under contract, but in terms of claims for unjust enrichment and return. In the era of common law, the relative effect of contracts began to be recognized as a general principle of civil law. Later, son's capacity for rights was recognized and slavery became meaningless. ![]() At this time, the other party was entitled to claim the performance in accordance contract against the head of household or owner. Sons or slaves whose rights were not recognized could enter into contracts and the head of household or the owner to take the profit transferred through that contract. ![]() This is the right to claim the return of benefits transferred to others and it was called “actio de in rem verso” in Roman law. At that time, there is the right of the contracting party who has not received the payment, to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the third person. Although one party to the contract fulfills its obligation to pay, the performance may result in a benefit to a third person who is not the other party to the contract.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |