1. Three characteristics of unjust enrichment
First of all, there must be two parties involved in the matter, one party is getting some kind of benefit, and the other side is suffering some kind of damage. It's like a seesaw, where one end goes up and the other goes down.
Second, there is an inseparable causal relationship between the acquisition of benefits and the acceptance of damages. It's like a stone thrown into a lake, and the ripples caused by it are the embodiment of cause and effect. Finally, the party who received the benefit obtained the benefit without a lawful basis, or although there was once a lawful basis, that ground later disappeared. It's like a tree in a forest, if a tree doesn't grow according to the rules, then it's not legal. Once the unjust enricher realizes that there is no lawful basis for his gains, or that the lawful basis has disappeared, they are obliged to return the benefits they have received to the injured party. 2. Elements of unjust enrichment, is a situation that we often encounter when it comes to legal issues. First of all, the benefit of one party is the core element of this. The benefits here include not only material wealth, but also rights and spiritual satisfaction. This includes positive increased benefits, such as the enhancement of property or expansion of rights, and negative increased benefits, such as unreduced expenses that should have been reduced. It is important to note that if a party merely causes losses to others and does not gain any benefit from them, then this does not constitute unjust enrichment. Second, damage to the interests of the other party is also an indispensable element. The loss here includes not only the reduction of existing property, but also the benefit that should have been increased but not increased. There must be a causal link between the loss and the party who gained the benefit. That is, the loss is caused by the party who has received the benefit. As to whether the loss and profit are the same and whether the pattern is the same, it does not affect the establishment of unjust enrichment. Finally, and most crucially, there is no legal basis for obtaining a benefit and for the benefit being impaired. Regardless of the legal system of any country, the core of unjust enrichment lies in the lack of legitimacy in the acquisition of benefits. Whether it is ab initio or after the fact, as long as there is no legal support, it may constitute unjust enrichment. For example, if a person without authority disposes of another's property and benefits from it, there is no reason in the first placeAnd if a contract is confirmed to be invalid after performance, there is no reason after the fact. These are important bases for us to judge whether unjust enrichment is constituted.
IIIStatute of limitations for unjust enrichment
Article 188 of the Civil Code clearly states that the statute of limitations for filing a request to the people's court for protection of civil rights is three years. This period is calculated from the date on which the right holder knows or should know that the right has been infringed and that the obligor has been damaged. If more than 20 years have elapsed since the date on which the right was violated, the people's court will no longer provide protection. However, if there are special circumstances, the people's court may decide to extend the extension on the basis of the application of the right holder. Article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Statute of Limitations System in the Trial of Civil Cases further clarifies the statute of limitations period for the return of the right to claim unjust enrichment: calculated from the date on which one of the parties knows or should have known the facts of unjust enrichment and the other party. Therefore, the commencement of the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment needs to meet two conditions at the same time: the injured person needs to know the existence of the fact of unjust enrichment, and also needs to know or should know the beneficiary. In real life, many people tend to misunderstand or overlook this. It is inaccurate that they may start to calculate the statute of limitations from the day they know that the party who has unjust enrichment or that they have suffered damage. The correct approach is to clarify where your own losses are, find out the parties who have caused the loss of your own interests, and then calculate the extension period of the statute of limitations on the basis of clarifying these. 3. How to determine the existence and beneficiaries of the facts of unjust enrichment that the parties knew or should have known
In judicial practice, how to determine whether the parties are aware of the existence of unjust enrichment and the identity of the beneficiary is a rather delicate and complex task. In the event that the plaintiff claims the return of unjust enrichment against the defendant through an express outward representation, the statute of limitations will begin to run from that moment. In this case, we can only determine the truth of the facts when both parties agree or when one party provides valid evidence to prove it. However, if the plaintiff does not explicitly state its claim, we need to know when it should have known the facts of unjust enrichment and the identity of the other party. For this issue, the relevant laws and regulations may provide us with some clues. If laws and regulations have certain provisions on engaging in specific acts, and it is reasonable to be able to discover the facts of unjust enrichment and the identity of the other party in engaging in such acts, then such acts should be regarded as the time when the plaintiff should know the facts of unjust enrichment and the other party.