The Essence of the Unjust-Enrichment Institution
In everyday circulation it often happens that one person is enriched at another's expense without any legal ground for it: a payment made by mistake, performance under a non-existent obligation, the annulment of a contract after performance. The Civil Code of Georgia regulates these situations in a separate chapter, whose central norms are Articles 976, 977, 979, 985 and 991. On this page we explain when what was transferred may be reclaimed, when that is excluded, what the restitution claim covers, and how the right to claim profit operates.
The unjust-enrichment claim is especially significant because it does not require the existence of a contract: the suit is built on the absence of a legal ground and on the recipient's enrichment. This institution fills the gaps that contractual and tort claims have, and its correct application is often the only route to restoring fairness.
Grounds and Exclusions of the Claim Against a Quasi-Creditor
Article 976 establishes the basic composition: a person who transferred something to another for the performance of an obligation may demand its return from the quasi-creditor (recipient) if the obligation does not exist, does not arise or later ceases because of the nullity of the transaction or another ground, or if a counter-performance was rendered contrary to the obligation in such a way that presenting a claim is excluded for a long period.
The law also answers the cases of exclusion of restitution: the claim is excluded if the performance corresponds to moral duties; the limitation period has passed; the recipient could assume that the performer wished the transfer despite the existence of the conditions of the composition; or the claim for return contradicts the protective function of the norms on nullity in the performance of a void debt transaction. This last exclusion is particularly subtle: demanding return in reliance on a void transaction would frustrate the very purpose for which the transaction is void.
Reclaiming What Was Transferred for a Purpose
Article 977 regulates another composition: a person who transfers something to another not for the performance of an obligation but in order that the latter perform or not perform some act may reclaim the transfer if the other person's act does not correspond to the expected purpose. Such is, for example, property transferred as a gift or for another purpose where the purpose no longer materializes. There are two exclusions: the attainment of the purpose was impossible from the outset and the transferor knew it, or the transferor dishonestly impeded the attainment of the purpose.
The Scope of Restitution and the Claim for Profit
Article 979 determines what the restitution claim covers: it extends to what was acquired, to the benefit received, and to everything else the recipient acquired in the form of compensation for the destruction, damage or confiscation of the received thing. If return is impossible because of the thing's condition or for another reason, the recipient must compensate its general value — determined at the time the right of claim arose. If the recipient was enriched neither by the thing nor by its value, no obligation of compensation exists — the essence of the unjust-enrichment claim is precisely enrichment, and where it is absent the claim disappears.
Article 985 regulates the claim for profit: where an interloper — a person who deliberately disregards another's entitlement — has used another's property, the entitled person may claim the profit exceeding the pecuniary loss. And finally, the interloper must present information on what profit was received from the use of another's property — the burden of information lies on that person, which materially eases the substantiation of the claim.
Article 991 completes the picture: a person enriched without ground at another's expense by any other means is obliged to return what was received. This norm sums up the spirit of the institution — it does not matter by which route the unjust enrichment occurred; where it exists, the restitution claim exists alongside it.
Frequently Asked Questions
When may a transfer be reclaimed?
Where the obligation for whose performance the transfer was made does not exist, does not arise or has ceased — or where the purpose of a transfer made for a purpose has not materialized.
When is the claim excluded?
Where the performance corresponded to a moral duty, the limitation period has passed, the recipient could assume the willingness to transfer, or the claim contradicts the protective function of the nullity norms.
What does the restitution cover?
The thing itself, the benefit received and what was received in its place; where return is impossible — its value determined at the time the claim arose.
May more than the loss be claimed?
Yes — against an interloper who deliberately disregarded another's entitlement, the profit exceeding the pecuniary loss is claimed, and the interloper substantiates that profit with information.
How We Help on Legal.ge
The attorneys at Legal.ge offer precise analysis in unjust-enrichment cases: we establish the fact of enrichment and the absence of a ground, compute what must be returned and the profit, and prepare the suit — both in defense of the transferor and of the recipient.
If you have been enriched at another's expense or, conversely, your property has been taken without ground, contact us at Legal.ge — we will assess the case under the exact norms of the Civil Code.