What is unjust enrichment?

Enrichment at another's expense without a legal ground — the claim for its return is protected by law.

When is return impossible to demand?

On performance of a moral duty, after the limitation period, on an assumed willingness to transfer, or against the protective function of the nullity norms.

What does the claimant receive?

The thing, the benefit and what was received in its place; where return is impossible — its value.

May profit be claimed?

Yes — against an interloper who deliberately disregarded another's entitlement; the profit too is substantiated by that person's information.

Unjust Enrichment Claims in Tbilisi, Georgia

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.

Unjust Enrichment Claims