Originally from World Arbitration And Mediation Review (WAMR)

Preview Page

RECOVERING DAMAGES FOR

UNJUST ENRICHMENT IN
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
Dana H. Freyer∗

I. INTRODUCTION
The concept of unjust enrichment generally denotes situations in which
one party unjustly (but not illegally) receives a benefit to the detriment of
another. Sometimes this is the result of a mistake, as where someone
mistakenly makes a payment to a party without owing it, or repairs
someone’s property in the mistaken belief that there was a contractual
obligation to do so.1 Other common examples of unjust enrichment include
services rendered in emergency situations, such as a physician who saves
the life of an unconscious patient, or a neighbor who makes repairs while
the owner is absent to prevent destruction of property.2
Both civil and common law jurisdictions have developed remedies
designed to prevent unjust enrichment in situations in which an injured party
cannot obtain recourse on the basis of contract or tort theories. Unjust
enrichment can be traced to Roman law3 and may still be invoked as a basis
for recovery in many civil law jurisdictions.4 Common law jurisdictions
have developed the theory of “restitution” to remedy unjust enrichment
situations. In the United States, for example, the Restatement of the Law of
Restitution5 provides that “[a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the
expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.