英国法中基于错误的不当得利一般条款的产生——巴克莱银行诉西姆斯案

The Birth of a General Provision for Unjust Enrichment Caused by Mistake in English Law: Barclays Bank v.Simms

巴克莱诉西姆斯案被誉为不当得利法中的多诺霍诉史蒂文森案,因为在西姆斯案之前,英国不当得利规则只散见于有限的特定情形中;在西姆斯案之后,英国不当得利规则首次被整合出了一般条款,尽管该案只涉及不当原因为错误的类型。具体而言,只要甲基于事实认识错误对乙做出给付,且错误与给付之间存在因果关系,那么甲原则上就可以要求乙返还这份利益。但出现下列情况之一,乙就可以抗辩甲的不当得利返还请求:第一,甲基于合意或法律的推定,无论相关事实如何,总是希望乙保有这份利益;第二,乙就接收这笔钱已经提供了对价,尤其是这份利益是甲用以偿还先前欠乙的债务;第三,基于事实或法律的推定,乙的得利已经丧失,且得利丧失时乙为善意。

Barclays Bank v. Simms is recognised as the “Donoghue v. Stevenson” case in the English law of unjust enrichment. This is because before Simms,unjust enrichment claims arose only in specific and limited contexts,whereas after Simms,the scattered rules of unjust enrichment have been integrated to be a general principle,though it applies to cases involving the unjust factor of mistake. Specifically,if a person enriches another under a mistake of fact which causes him to transfer a right,he is prima facie entitled to recover such right as unjust enrichment under a mistake of fact. His claim may however fail if （a） the transferor intends that the transferee shall have the right at all events,whether the fact be true or false,or is deemed in law so to intend;or （b） the transfer is made for good consideration,in particular if the right is paid to discharge,and does discharge,a debt owed to the transferee by the transferor;or （c） the transferee has changed his position in good faith,or is deemed in law to have done so.