| Summary: | Includes abstract. === This work examines the change-of-position (loss of enrichment) defence comparatively in five jurisdictions, namely South Africa, Brazil, England Canada and USA. It advances a three-part argument which contends, first, that when a legal system opts for a general enrichment principle, it must equally limit it with defences. Secondly, that once the limiting mechanisms are chosen, the system must demarcate their contours and establish the inevitable exceptions. Thirdly, that legal system, as a consequence, must also decide whether to require a symmetric ‘gain-loss’ situation, i.e., whether to insist that the measure of recovery be limited by the plaintiff’s loss. If it chooses a symmetry ‘gainloss’, that system might face difficulties avoiding a passing on defence, as the reverse face of change-of-position on the plaintiff’s side, thereby potentially undermining indirectly the principle of legality. If it departs from that symmetry, the passing on defence may ‘normatively’ be ignored, unless for policy reasons it opts to have it. The study concludes that South Africa is bound to adopt explicitly a general principle of unjustified enrichment with change of position as the general defence applicable to all unjustified enrichment claims, save to claims arising from failed bilateral agreements. The study recommends that South Africa may give limited recognition to the passing on defence in its private law of unjustified enrichment where policy considerations do not militate against its application.
|
|---|
