Demystifying Enrichment Without Cause

• Author: Nikolaos A. Davrados
• Position: Assistant Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law.
• Pages: 1223-1288

Demystifying Enrichment Without Cause

Nikolaos A. Davrados*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................ 1224

I. Historical Foundations of Enrichment Without Cause ............... 1226

A. Roman Law Foundations ..................................................... 1226

1. Condictio and Actio de in Rem Verso ............................ 1227

2. Ulpian’s Causa .............................................................. 1232

B. European Civil Codes—The French-German

Separation ........................................................................... 1234

1. The French Model—Causality and

Actio de in Rem Verso ................................................... 1234

2. The German Model—Abstraction and Condictio ......... 1242

II. Scope of Application of Enrichment Without Cause ................. 1248

A. General Principles ................................................................ 1248

1. Enrichment Without Cause as Lex Generalis................ 1248

2. Enrichment Without Cause as a Juridical Fact .............. 1249

3. Enrichment Without Cause as Restitution,

Not Restoration ............................................................. 1253

B. Requirements for an Action of Enrichment

Without Cause ..................................................................... 1254

1. Material Requirements .................................................. 1255

a. Enrichment .............................................................. 1255

i. Performance or Benefit Conferred

on Obligor at Obligee’s Expense ......................... 1256

Copyright 2018, by NIKOLAOS A. DAVRADOS.

* Assistant Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of

Law. The author wishes to thank Arthur Crais, David Cromwell, Trey Drury,

David Gruning, John Lovett, Maria Pabon, Ronald J. Scalise, Jr., Robert

Thibeaux, Dian Tooley-Knoblett, and James Etienne Viator for their thoughtful

comments and valuable insight. The author also thanks Janet Kearney and

Christopher War ren for their assistance in the research for this Article and the

editors of the Louisiana Law Review for their helpful s uggestions during the

editing process. Any mistakes and omissions are attributable solely to the author.

In memoriam A.N. Yiannop oulos: scholar, teacher, draftsman, biophile, mentor,

and dear friend who so openhandedly imparted the gift of   that he himself

received. And may this contribution be an obol for the ferryman.   

 !

1224 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 78

ii. Obligor’s Interference with Obligee’s

Patrimony ........................................................ 1262

iii. Obligee’s Expenses on Obligor’s

Property .......................................................... 1264

b. Impoverishment ...................................................... 1266

c. Causal Link Between Enrichment and

Impoverishment ...................................................... 1266

2. Juridical Requirements .................................................. 1270

a. Lack of Cause for Retaining Enrichment ............... 1270

i. Valid Juridical Act ............................................ 1271

ii. The Law ............................................................ 1275

ii-a. Failed Juridical Acts ................................ 1275

ii-b. Natural Obligations ................................. 1277

ii-c. Quasi-Contracts ....................................... 1279

ii-d. Judicial Decisions .................................... 1279

b. Absence of Other Remedy: Subsidiarity

of the Action ........................................................... 1280

Conclusion .................................................................................. 1287

INTRODUCTION

Enrichment without cause was introduced into the Louisiana Civil

Code as revised Article 2298.1 As indicated in the revision comments,2 this

provision codified preexisting jurisprudence that had imported the theory

1. LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2298 (2018); Act No. 713, § 1, 1995 La. Acts No.

1041 (codified as LA. CIV. CODE art. 2298 (1996)). The Quasi-Contracts Committee

of the Louisiana State Law Institute, chaired by Professor A.N. Yiannopoulos,

prepared the initial draft of this revised Article. See Cheryl Martin, Louisiana State

Law Institute Proposes Revision of Negotiorum Gestio and Codification of Unjust

Enrichment, 69 TUL. L. REV. 181 (1994).

2. Art. 2298 cmt. a.

2018] DEMYSTIFYING ENRICHMENT WITHOUT CAUSE 1225

of actio de in rem verso,3 together with the mysteries4 of this theory’s

jurisprudential past.

Generally, liability for enrichment without cause requires a

displacement of wealth in favor of the enriched obligor at the expense of

the impoverished obligee. Morever, this displacement is not justified by

the will of the parties or by operation of law.5 The remedy provided is

subsidiary. It is intended to restore this patrimonial imbalance while at the

same time rectifying the inequity of the situation pursuant to the moral

directives of equity and commutative justice.6

This Article explores two mysteries surrounding the theory of

enrichment without cause that still bedevil scholars and the courts—the

theory’s foundation and its scope of application. Part I examines the

history, characteristic features, and underlying principles of enrichment

without cause as a source of obligations and a special expression of the

more general principle of unjustified enrichment.7 Part II applies this

3. In France, the actio de in rem verso was introduced in the seminal decision

of the Cour de cassation in the Boudier case. Cour de cassation [Cass.] [supreme court

for judicial matters] req., June 15, 1892, D. 1892, 1, 596, S. 1893, 1, 281, note J.-E.

Labbé (Fr.); HENRI CAPITANT ET AL., 2 LES GRANDS ARRETS DE LA JURISPRUDENCE

CIVILE, OBLIGATIONS, CONTRATS SPECIAUX, SURETES No. 241 (13th ed. 2015) (Fr.).

The Louisiana Supreme Court recognized the actio de in rem verso in the landmark

cases Minyard v. Curtis Prod., Inc., 205 So. 2d 422 (La. 1967) and Edmonston v. A-

Second Mortgage Co., 289 So. 2d 116 (La. 1974). ALAIN A. LEVASSEUR, LOUISIANA

LAW OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN QUASI-CONTRACTS 344, 355–60 (1991).

4. A.N. Yiannopoulos, Presentation to the Civil Law Property Students at the

Loyola University New Orleans College of Law: Mysteries of the Louisiana Civil

Code (Oct. 19, 2015), https://vimeo.com/143021101 [https://perma.cc/V3DW-

8L8K] (discussing “truths, half-truths, and falsehoods” of Louisiana civil law).

5. Scott v. Wesley, 589 So. 2d 26 , 27 (La. Ct. App. 1991) (“The ro ot

principle of an unjustified enrichment . . . is that the plaintiff suffers an economic

detriment for which he should not be responsible, while the defendant receives an

economic benefit for which he has not paid.”).

6. See 9 CHARLES AUBRY & CHARLES RAU, COURS DE DROIT CIVIL

FRANÇAIS No. 578 (Etienne Bartin ed., 5th ed. 1897–1923).

7. LA. CIV. CODE ANN. arts. 1757, 2298. Courts often use the terms

“unjust(ified) enrichment” and “enrich ment without ca use” interchangeably.

These two terms, however, should be distinguished. “Unjustified enrichment” is

a general p rinciple of law, whereas “enrichment witho ut cause” is a specific

source of obligations. This Article does not discuss the general principle of

unjustified enrichment, the expression of which is found in several areas of the

law, including enrichment without cause. See DIG. 12.6.14 (Pomponius, Ad

Sabinum 21) (“For it is by nature fair that nobody should enrich himself at the

expense of another.”) and DIG. 50.17.206 (Pomponius, Ex Variis Lectionibus 9)

(“By the law of nature it is fair that no one become richer by the loss and injury