Marek Sobczyk
The problem of «causa conditionis»
in the settlements of Roman jurists
and in modern Polish unjustified
enrichment law
Studia Prawnoustrojowe nr 9, 29-42
2009
M arek Sobczyk
U n iw e r s y te t M ik o ła ja K o p e rn ik a
The problem of causa condictionis
in the settlem ents of Roman jurists and in modern
Polish unjustified enrichment law
1. Introd u ction
I n m y p a p e r I w o u ld lik e to in tr o d u c e y o u to th e p ro b le m o f c a u sa
c o n d ic tio n is in th e s e ttle m e n ts o f R o m a n j u r i s t s a n d to p ro v e th e to p ic a lity
o f th is is s u e in c o n te m p o r a r y law , e s p e c ia lly i n th e P o lis h u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t law . U n d o u b te d ly , c o n te m p o r a r y r e g u la tio n s o n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t in t h e v a r io u s E u r o p e a n s t a t e s r e s t o n R o m a n fo u n d a tio n s , e s p e c ia lly o n th e c ru c ia l c o n c e p t o f u n d u e p e rfo rm a n c e . I n a r t. 4 1 0 § 2 o f t h e P o lis h civ il code o n e c a n f in d r e fe r e n c e s to c o n d ic tio n e s w o rk e d o u t b y R o m a n j u r i s t s 1.
U n ju s t e n r ic h m e n t h a s b e e n o n e o f th e p rin c ip le s o u rc e s o f o b lig a tio n sin c e R o m a n tim e s . T h is to p ic h a s b e e n a t t h e c e n tr e o f i n t e r e s t o f r e s e a r c h e rs o n b o th R o m a n a n d m o d e rn civ il la w fo r m a n y y e a r s . O n e o f t h e m o st c o n te n tio u s is s u e s is th e p ro b le m o f c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is , t h a t is a g r o u n d for c la im s co m m o n to a ll c o n d ic tio n e s, a co m m o n id e a o f th e re m e d y fo r th e re c o v e ry o f a n u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t2. T h is is s u e h a s b e e n p o p u la r a m o n g a c a d e m ic s sin c e th e I n s titu tio n e s o f G a iu s w e re fo u n d in 1 8 1 6 3, m o s tly d u e to
1 On this issue see W. Mossakowski, Instytucja bezpodstawnego wzbogacenia (condictio
nes), “Forum Iuridicum” 2004, nr 3, p. 87-100.
2 On the meaning of causa condictionis see A. Ehrhardt, Iusta causa traditionis. Eine
Untersuchung über den Erwerb des Eigentums nach römischem Recht, Berlin - Leipzig 1930,
p. 42 and p. 48; F. Schwarz, Die Grundlage der condictio im klassischen römischen Recht, Münster - Köln 1952, p. 229, p. 303; A. Simonius, Zur Frage einer einheitlichen „causa condic
tionis“, Festschrift Hans Lewald, Basel 1953, p. 161; S. Hähnchen, Die causa condictionis. Ein Beitrag zum klassischen römischen Kondiktionenrecht, Berlin 2003, p. 13, p. 18 f.; W. Dajczak, Tradycja romanistyczna a współczesna debata o zasadach prawa prywatnego. Uwagi na tle problemu niesłusznego wzbogacenia, [in:] Prawo rzymskie a kultura prawna Europy, A. Dębiń
ski, M. Jońca (eds.), Lublin 2008, p. 132 ff.
th e fa c t t h a t th e co n d ic tio is th e o n ly a c tio n i n R o m a n civ il p ro c e d u re t h a t d id n o t in c lu d e a n y c a u s a d e b e n d i4. T h e p ro b le m o f c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is in R o m a n la w h a s b e e n ta c k le d b o th fro m a n a r r o w p o in t o f view , c o n fin e d to r e s t i t u t i o n o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t, a n d i n its b r o a d e r m e a n in g , w h ic h re fe rs to a ll c a s e s w h e re co n d ic tio w a s a p p lie d , so e v e n i n th e fie ld o f c o n tr a c t (e.g.
s tip u la tio , m u tu u m , e x p e n sila tio ), t o r t la w ( fu r tu m ) a n d q u a s i c o n tr a c ts 5.
W e m u s t a s s u m e t h a t t h e fa c t t h a t o n e o f th e in d ic a te d g ro u n d s w a s p e c u lia r to a ll c a s e s o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t does n o t ju s tif y th e v ie w t h a t it w a s p e c u lia r to a ll c o n d ic tio n e s a s w ell. N e v e r th e le s s , th e id e n tif ic a tio n o f th e g r o u n d p e c u lia r to c o n d ic tio w ith in t h e fie ld o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t is b e n e fic ia l in its e lf, b e c a u s e it c o n tr ib u te s to th e b e t t e r u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e th e o r e tic a l a s s u m p tio n s o f th i s le g a l in s t i t u t i o n a n d e n a b le s u s to g r a s p th e f e a tu r e s o f a ll c a s e s in w h ic h it w a s a p p lie d . I m u s t a d d t h a t th e m a jo r ity o f w o rk s o n c a u sa c o n d ic tio n is w e re w r i t t e n u n d e r t h e in flu e n c e o f a r a d ic a l c r itiq u e o f so u rc e s; s u s p ic io n s a s to th e g e n u in e n e s s o f th e s o u rc e s a ffe c te d th e w o rk s o f G. D o n a tu ti6, F. S c h w a rz 7 a n d U . v o n L ü b to w 8, w h ic h is w h y th i s is s u e r e q u ir e s a f r e s h review . I n th is c o n te x t I a s s u m e th e so u rc e s s h o u ld b e t r e a t e d a s g e n u in e u n le s s i t is d e e p ly ju s tif ie d t h a t th e y a r e n o t9. O n e c a n a s k to w h a t e x te n t i t is a “R o m a n p ro b le m ”, I m e a n a p ro b le m t a k e n u p b y R o m a n j u r i s t s , p r e s e n t in th e so u rc e s o f R o m a n law , a n d to w h a t e x te n t it is a m o d e rn p ro b le m , a n e m a n a tio n o f th e c o n te m p o ra ry p o in t o f v ie w o n th e h is to r ic a l s o u rc e s o f law , b u t a lie n to R o m a n ju r i s t s . To a n s w e r th i s q u e s tio n I m u s t a d m it t h a t th e r e a r e tw o c o n te n tio u s p o in ts of v ie w s o n t h is m a tte r , so m e R o m a n is ts r e g a r d it a s a R o m a n p ro b le m , k n o w n to R o m a n j u r i s t s , w h o t r i e d to fin d a c a u sa c o n d ic tio n is , a n d so m e r e s e a r c h e rs c o n s id e r i t a s a n a r tif ic ia l p ro b le m o w in g to th e fa c t t h a t th e r e w a s n o t 4 O. Lenel, Das Edictum Perpetuum - Ein Versuch zu seiner Wiederherstellung, Leipzig 1927, p. 239 f.; D. Liebs, The history of the Roman condictio up to Justinian, [in:] The legal
mind. Essay for Tony Honoré, N. MacCormick, P. Birks (eds.), Oxford 1986, p. 165 ff.;
R. Zimmermann, The Law Obligations. Roman Foundations and the Civilian Tradition, Cape Town - Wetton - Johannesburg 1990, p. 835 f.; S. Hähnchen, op. cit., p. 13; W. Dajczak, op. cit., p. 132.
5 F. Schwarz confined himself only to unjustified enrichment (F. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 2). It is contentious whether Roman jurists knew enrichment „in another manner”, so enrichment not related to a performance, see R. Santaro, Studi sulla condictio, “Annali Palermo” 1971, nr 32, p. 181 ff.; D. Liebs, op. cit., p. 170 f.; S. Heine, Condictio sine datione. Zur Haftung aus
ungerechtfertigter Bereicherung im klassischen römischen Recht und zur Entstehung des Bereiche rungsrechts im BGB, Berlin 2005, passim.
6 G. Donatuti, Le “causae” delle “condictiones”, “Studi Parmesi” I, 1951, pp. 33-169. 7 F. Schwarz, op. cit., passim.
8 U. von Lübtow, Beiträge zur Lehre von der Condictio nach römischem und bürgerlichem
Recht. Studien zum römischen und geltenden Recht, Berlin 1952.
9 Cf. W. Bojarski, Remarks on Textual Reconstruction in Roman Law, [in:] W. Wołodkie wicz, M. Zabłocka (eds.), Le droit romain et le monde contemporain. Mélanges à la mémoire de
a n y c a u sa c o n d ic tio n is 10. T h e s o u rc e s th e m s e lv e s a r e n o t c le a r e n o u g h ; h o w ev er, i t is v e ry d iffic u lt to fin d a tr a c e o f th e q u e s t fo r a co m m o n b a s is o f c la im s , w h ic h is w h y w e c a n n o t a s s u m e t h a t th e r e w a s a d is p u te o v e r it a m o n g R o m a n s 11.
I n s p ite o f c r itic a l v o ices, w h ic h a r e i n th e m in o rity , I r e g a r d th e s e a r c h fo r c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is a s ju s tifie d .
T h is is s u e h a s a lw a y s b e e n of g r e a t im p o r ta n c e i n th e c o u rs e of th e d e v e lo p m e n t of t h e u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t d o c trin e . T h e n a m e of th i s i n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f re fle c ts a c o n tro v e rs y o v e r its ra tio leg is, b e c a u s e w e c a n w o n d e r w h ic h n a m e is p ro p e r: u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t o r u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t, u n d e r s to o d as e n r ic h m e n t w ith o u t le g a l b a s is . E v e n i f w e a c c e p t th e v ie w t h a t th e r e w as n o t a n y c o m m o n b a s is of c la im s of u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t i n R o m a n la w a n d t h a t th i s p ro b le m w a s a lie n to R o m a n s , i t d o es n o t d im in is h i t s im p o r ta n c e fo r c o m p a r a tiv e law . T h e fa c t i t s e l f t h a t R o m a n s d id n o t t a k e u p th i s is s u e is n o t s u ffic ie n t to a d m it t h a t th e r e w a s n o t a n y c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is , o n th e c o n tr a ry, th e co m m o n n a m e o f th e a c tio n w ith s u c h a w id e fie ld o f a p p lic a tio n g iv es r is e to a d is c u s s io n w h e th e r th e r e w a s s o m e th in g p e c u lia r to a ll le g a l r e l a t io n s h ip s w h e r e th e a c tio n w a s u s e d . U ltim a te ly , i t m a y t u r n o u t t h a t th e p o p u la r ity o f c o n d ic tio is d u e to its d is tin g u is h in g f e a tu r e s a s a n a c tio n of civ il p ro c e d u r e n o t to th e p r o p e r tie s o f c e r ta in le g a l r e la tio n s h ip s . I s h a r e th e p o in t o f v ie w o f E m ilio B e tti t h a t th e fa c t t h a t R o m a n la w y e rs d id n o t d e a l w ith a p a r t i c u l a r p ro b le m d o es m e a n t h a t w e a r e n o t a llo w e d to ta c k le th is p ro b le m 12. A lre a d y m o re t h a n o n e h u n d r e d y e a r s ag o A lfre d P e rn ic e e n c o u r a g e d r e s e a r c h e r s n o t to c o n fin e th e m s e lv e s to a r g u m e n ts o f R o m a n j u r i s t s b u t to lo o k fo r id e a s t h a t in flu e n c e d t h e m 13. I n m y o p in io n d u e to th e fa c t t h a t c o n te m p o r a r y r e g u la tio n s r e s t o n R o m a n f o u n d a tio n s i t is le g itim a te to a s k w h e th e r th e p ro b le m o f c o m m o n g ro u n d s fo r c la im s is s till p r e s e n t i n th e d o c trin e a n d ju d ic ia l d e c isio n s. I t s e e m s b e n e fic ia l to e s ta b lis h i f th e s a m e co m m o n g ro u n d s a r e in d ic a te d n o w a d a y s a s i n R o m a n tim e s.
T h e r e g u la tio n s o n u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t a r e v e r y d if f e r e n t i n v a rio u s E u r o p e a n s ta te s , w h ic h is w h y e v e n th e re fe re n c e to o n e le g a l fa m ily o n ly w o u ld e x c e e d th e f ra m e w o rk o f t h is p a p e r s ig n ific a n tly . F o r t h is r e a s o n I co n fin e m y s e lf o n ly to m y n a tiv e le g a l s y s te m , a ll th e m o re t h a t th e P o lis h r e g u la tio n is s tr o n g ly in flu e n c e d b y fo re ig n p a tte r n s .
10 W. Flume, Der Wegfall der Bereicherung in der Entwicklung vom römischem zum gel
tenden Recht, [in:] Festschrift für Hans Niedermeyer zum 70. Geburtstag, Göttingen 1953,
p. 136 ff.
11 A. Pernice, Marcus Antistius Labeo. Das römische Privatrecht im 1. Jahrhunderte der
Kaiserzeit 3, Band 1, Halle 1892, p. 260.
12 E. Betti, Zum Problem der Gefahrtragung bei zweiseitig verpflichtenden Verträgen, ZSS 1965, nr 83, p. 17.
13 A. Pernice, Über wirtschaftliche Voraussetzungen römischer Rechtssätze, ZSS 1898, nr 19, p. 98.
M y w o rk does n o t a s p ir e to a c o m p re h e n s iv e a n a ly s is o f c a u sa co n d ictio -
n is in e v e ry fie ld o f its a p p lic a tio n ; m y a im is o n ly to in tr o d u c e y o u to th e
g ro u n d s fo r r e s t i t u t i o n o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t b o th in R o m a n a n d in c o n te m p o r a r y civ il law . T h e v e r y lim ite d scope o f th i s p a p e r d o es n o t le t m e a n a ly s e e v e n th e m o s t i m p o r ta n t r e le v a n t s o u rc e s o f R o m a n la w to e s ta b lis h th e co m m o n g r o u n d fo r re c o v e ry o f th e u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t. I n o r d e r to a c h ie v e th i s p u rp o s e I w o u ld h a v e to w r ite a book, a s fo r e x a m p le F. S c h u lz o r S. H ä h n c h e n d id , n o t o n ly a s h o r t p a p e r; th e r e f o r e I do n o t a n a ly s e s o u rc e s b u t I co n fin e m y s e lf o n ly to th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f th e m o s t p o p u la r th e o r ie s of c o n te m p o r a r y r e s e a r c h e r s o f R o m a n la w to c h e c k i f th e th e o r ie s a r e s till p r e s e n t in th e d o c trin e o f civ il law . I t h i n k t h a t a p a p e r lim ite d o n ly to a c o m p a ris o n o f th e m o s t i m p o r ta n t th e o r ie s o n th e s a m e is s u e i n th e a fo re m e n tio n e d le g a l s y s te m s , e v e n w ith o u t d e e p a n a ly s is o f th e so u rc e s t h a t s u p p o r t th e th e o r ie s , is s till b e n e fic ia l, b e c a u s e i t le ts u s e s ta b lis h if w e h a v e th e s a m e p ro b le m s a s R o m a n s h a d a n d if w e solve th e m i n a s im ila r w a y to th e m .
To m y m in d b e c a u s e so m a n y b o o k s a n d a r tic le s w e re w r i t t e n o n th is is s u e th e r e is no p o in t in d o in g f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h to e s ta b lis h th e c a u sa
c o n d ic tio n is in R o m a n law ; i t is m o re u s e f u l to v e rify w h e th e r th i s is s u e is
s till p r e s e n t in c o n te m p o r a r y la w a n d to c o m p a re th e R o m a n c o n c e p tio n w ith th e c o n te m p o r a r y one.
2. Common grou n d s for claim s for th e reco v ery o f unjust
en rich m en t in d ica ted by th e resea rch ers o f Rom an law
O n e o f th e o ld e s t a n d th e m o s t w id e s p r e a d c o n c e p tio n s o f th e co m m o n g r o u n d of c la im s fo r th e re c o v e ry o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t in R o m a n la w is th e th e o r y o f f a ir n e s s o r e q u ity (a e q u ita s), in t h e lig h t o f w h ic h th e p ro te c tio n of th e im p o v e ris h e d p a r t y w a s d e riv e d fro m th e p rin c ip le o f e q u ity . T h is co n c e p tio n h a s its f o u n d a tio n f ir s t o f a ll in tw o fa m o u s le g a l m a x im s iu re
n a tu r a e a e q u u m e s t n e m in e m c u m a lte r iu s d e tr im e n to e t in iu r ia fie r i locuple- tio r e m 14 (by th e la w o f n a t u r e i t is f a ir t h a t n o o n e b eco m e r ic h e r b y th e loss
a n d in ju r y o f a n o th e r ) , w e ll k n o w n a lso in th e v e r s io n n a m hoc n a tu r a
a e q u u m e s t n e m in e m c u m a lte r iu s d e tr im e n to fie r i lo c u p le tio r e m 15 (fo r i t is
b y n a t u r e f a ir t h a t n o b o d y s h o u ld e n r ic h h im s e lf a t th e e x p e n s e o f a n o th e r ) a n d h ea c co n d ic tio ex bono e t a e q u o in tr o d u c ta , q u o d a lte r iu s a p u d a lte r u m
s in e c a u s a d e p re h e n d itu r, revo ca re c o n s u e v it16 ( th is c o n d ic tio , g r o u n d e d in
14 Pomponius D.50.17.206. 15 Pomponius D.12.6.14.
16 Papinianus D.12.6.66, on this problem see F. Pringsheim, Bonum et aequum, ZSS 1932, nr 52, p. 152; F. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 216 f.; R. Zimmermann, op. cit., p. 852 f.
th e id e a o f w h a t is good a n d fair, h a s b eco m e t h e m e a n s o f re c la im in g w h a te v e r, b e lo n g in g to o n e i n t h e a b s e n c e o f good c a u s e is fo u n d i n th e h a n d s o f a n o th e r).
S in c e th e tim e s o f F r ie d r ic h C a r l v o n S a v ig n y th e s e s t a te m e n ts , w h ic h h a v e o b ta in e d th e s t a t u s o f g e n e r a l m a x im s , h a v e ju s tif ie d th e v ie w t h a t th e g r o u n d a n d p re c o n d itio n fo r c o n d ic tio ’s a p p lic a tio n s w a s th e e n r ic h m e n t o f o n e p e r s o n a t th e e x p e n s e o f a n o th e r a n d t h a t t h e e n r ic h m e n t s h o u ld b e r e s t o r e d 17. I n th e f u r t h e r d e v e lo p m e n t o f t h is d o c trin e th e p r e c o n d itio n o f e n r ic h m e n t h a s b e c o m e c o m b in e d w ith th e la w o f n a t u r e a n d th e p rin c ip le o f e q u ity 18. I t w a s s tr e s s e d t h a t th e p r in c ip le o f ju s tic e is th e f o u n d a tio n o f re c o v e ry o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t19, th e le itm o tif o f c la s s ic a l c o n d ic tio 20. N o w a d a y s th e m o s t p r o m in e n t s u p p o r te r o f th i s d o c trin e is B e r th o ld K u p is c h 21. T h e d o c trin e o f e q u ity h a s m a n y o p p o n e n ts w ho a r g u e t h a t e q u ity w a s n o t a p rin c ip le a p p lie d d ire c tly 22 a n d t h a t th e a f o r e m e n tio n e d m a x im s a r e o n ly a n e x p re s s io n o f a g e n e r a l r u le o f ju s tic e n o t t h e so u rc e s o f o b lig a tio n 23.
T h e n e x t v e r y p o p u la r d o c tr in e o f c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is in R o m a n la w is th e c o n c e p tio n o f n e g o tiu m c o n tr a c tu m 24, a k in d o f d ir e c t d e a lin g o r a g r e e m e n t re a c h e d b y t h e p a r tie s , s im ila r b u t n o t id e n tic a l to c o n tra c t. I n fa c t n e g o tiu m h a s a b r o a d e r m e a n in g t h a n c o n tr a c t25. T h is c o n c e p tio n a lso h a s f o u n d a tio n s in th e so u rc e s o f R o m a n law , f ir s t o f a ll i n th e s e ttle m e n t o f J u l i a n u s in th e 39 b o o k o f h is d ig e s t (D .1 2 .6 .3 3 ). I n t h is s e ttle m e n t J u l i a n u s re f u s e d to g r a n t
co n d ic tio to a p e r s o n w h o h a d b u ilt a h o u s e o n a n o th e r ’s la n d d u e to th e fa c t
17 F. C. Savigny, System des heutigen römischen Rechts, Band 5, Berlin 1841, p. 564. 18 Ch. Wollschläger, Das stoische Bereicherungsverbot in der römischen Rechtswissenchaft, [in:] O. Behrends, M. Diesselhorst, W. E. Voss (eds.), Römisches Recht in der europäischen
Tradition, Symposion aus Anlaß des 75. Geburtstages von F. Wieacker, Ebelsbach 1985, p. 77 f.
19 H. Coing, Zur Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bereicherung bei Accursius, ZSS 1963, nr 80, p. 396.
20 H. Nelson, U. Manthe, Gai Institutiones III, 88-181. Die Kontraktsobligationen. Text
und Kommentar, Berlin 1999, p. 85.
21 B. Kupisch, Ungerechfertigte Bereicherung. Geschichtliche Entwicklungen, Heildelberg 1987, p. 25 f.
22 T. Kipp, Paulys Realencyclopädie der Altertumswissenchaften, vol. 7, Stuttgart 1900, s.v. condictio, J. P. Dawson, Unjust enrichment. A comparative analysis, Boston 1951, p. 4; R. Zimmermann, op. cit., p. 852; G. Schiemann, Condictio, [in:] Der neue Pauly, vol. 3, p. 120 f.
23 R. Feenstra, Die ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung in dogmengeschichtlicher Sicht, „Anka ra Universitesi Hukuk Fakültesu Dergesi“ 1972, Sayi 1-2, p. 292; F. Giglio, Condictio proprie-
taria und europäisches Bereicherungsrecht. Eine Untersuchung auf rechtshistorischer und recht svergleichender Basis mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des deutschen und itallanischen Rechts,
Berlin 2000, p. 42 f.
24 F. Trampedach, Die condictio incerti, ZSS 1896, nr 17, p. 97 f.; G. Donatuti, op. cit., p. 49; F. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 193; A. Simonius, op. cit., p. 165; N. Jansen, Die Korrektur
grundloser Vermögensverchiebungen als Restitution? Zur Lehre von der ungerechtfertigten Bere- icherug bei Savigny, ZSS 2003, nr 120, p. 113; S. Heine, op. cit., p. 29.
25 On negotium see F. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 192; R. Zimmermann, op. cit., p. 854; A. Saccoccio, Si certum petetur. Dalla condictio dei veteres alle condictiones giustinanee, Milano 2002, p. 282 ff.; S. Heine, op. cit., p. 26 ff.
t h a t th e r e w a s n o t a n y k in d o f n e g o tiu m b e tw e e n th e p a r t i e s 26. T h e r e q u ir e m e n t o f n e g o tiu m is a lso p r e s e n t i n o th e r s o u rc e s 27. H o w ev er, w e c a n fin d s e ttle m e n ts w h e r e th e co n d ic tio w a s g r a n t e d i n s p ite o f th e fa c t t h a t th e r e w a s n o t n e g o tiu m 28.
T h e fo llo w ers o f th is d o c tr in e a s s u m e t h a t d a tio w a s th e b a s ic p re c o n d i tio n fo r a p p lic a tio n o f co n d ic tio w ith t h e e x c e p tio n o f c o n d ic tio ex c a u sa
f u r t i v a 29.
V ery s im ila r to th e d o c tr in e o f n e g o tiu m is th e c o n c e p tio n t h a t t h e g r o u n d fo r co n d ic tio w a s a n e x p re s s o r im p lie d a r r a n g e m e n t b e tw e e n th e p a r tie s i n w h ic h th e y d e te r m in e d th e p r e m is e s o f r e s t i t u t i o n o f f in a n c ia l b e n e fit. A p ro o f o f th i s k in d o f a r r a n g e m e n ts is s e e n in th e c a s e s o f d a tio ob re m , b e c a u s e i t is a s s u m e d t h a t th e p a r tie s to d a tio d e te r m in e d t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s i n w h ic h th e g iv e n o b ject h a d to b e g iv e n b a c k to a g iv er, i n p a r tic u la r , i n th e c a s e w h e re th e a im o f th e p e r fo rm a n c e w a s f r u s t r a t e d 30.
T h e m o s t p o p u la r p o in t o f v ie w i n c o n te m p o r a r y d o c trin e is b a s e d o n th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n c a u s a d a n d i u n d e r s to o d a s a r e a s o n fo r p e rfo rm a n c e a n d th e c a u s a r e tin e n d i u n d e r s to o d a s a r e a s o n t h a t ju s tif ie d th e r e t e n t i o n o f th e o b je c t o f p e rfo rm a n c e b y th e p e r s o n to w h o m i t w a s g iv e n 31. O f c o u rs e th is d is tin c tio n is a p p lie d o n ly to u n d u e p e rf o rm a n c e , b u t n o t to th e o th e r c a s e s o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t d u e to th e la c k o f d a tio .
F o rm e rly , th e r e s e a r c h e r s p a id m o re a t t e n t i o n to c a u s a d a n d i 32; th e y a s s u m e d th e e x is te n c e o f a c la im fo r re c o v e ry o f th e p e r fo rm a n c e i n e v e ry c a s e w h e n c a u s a w a s v itia te d (fa ls a 33, n u lla c a u s a 34) o r d id n o t e x is t a t all
(sin e c a u s a 35).
I n t h e c o n te m p o r a r y d o c trin e th e u s e f u ln e s s o f th i s c o n c e p tio n is p e rc e iv e d in th e fie ld o f co n d ic tio in d e b iti a n d co n d ic tio ob r e m ; h o w e v e r, g r e a te r im p o r ta n c e is a t ta c h e d to c a u sa r e tin e n d i . I n th i s c o n c e p tio n th e c la im fo r th e re c o v e ry o f e n r ic h m e n t r e s te d r e s t n o t o n th e fa c t t h a t a f te r th e p e rf o r m a n c e i t t u r n e d o u t t h a t i t s c a u s a d id n o t e x is t o r w a s d e fe c tiv e , b u t o n th e fa c t t h a t th e r e w a s no p r o p e r ju s tif ic a tio n fo r r e te n tio n o f p e rfo rm a n c e b y
26 On this settlement see I. Koschembahr-Lyskowski, Condictio, vol. 1, p. 94 ff.; J. P. Dawson, op. cit., p. 51 f.; S. Hähnchen, op. cit., p. 27 f.; A. Saccoccio, op. cit., p. 279 ff.; S. Heine, op. cit., p. 26 ff.; J. D. Harke, Das klassische Kondiktionensystem, IURA 2003, p. 76 f.
27 Ulpianus D.12.6.2 pr.; Africanus D.23.3.50 pr.; Celsus D.12.1.32; Julianus D.39.6.13 pr.; Gai. 3.91.
28 See R. Santoro, op. cit., p. 237 ff.; D. Liebs, op. cit., p. 171 f. 29 Cf. S. Hähnchen, op. cit., p. 27 f.
30 F. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 193 f.; S. Hähnchen, op. cit., p. 29.
31 On causa dandi and causa retinendi see F. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 224 ff.
32 H. Witte, Die Bereicherungsklagen des Gemeines Rechts, Halle 1859, p. 139; M. Voigt,
Über die condictiones ob causam und über causa und titulus im allgemeinen, Leipzig 1862,
p. 489.
33 Ulpianus D.12.6.23.
34 Papinianus D.12.7.5 pr. and 1.
th e r e c ip ie n t36. T h is d o c trin e is b a s e d o n th e so u rc e s w h e re i t is w r i t t e n t h a t th e c o n d ic tio w o u ld go fo r a n y th in g in so m e o n e ’s h a n d s o n a n u n la w fu l b a s is 37, p r o p e r ty c a n a lw a y s b e re c o v e re d b y a co n d ic tio fro m p e o p le w ho p o s s e s s i t w ith o u t p r o p e r t i t l e 38, b e c a u s e p r o p e r ty w h ic h is r e t a i n e d o n th e b a s is o f a g ift w h ic h is n o t p e r m itte d b y la w is h e ld to b e r e t a i n e d w ith o u t c a u s e o r w ith o u t j u s t c a u s e , a n d a co n d ic tio w ill b e a v a ila b le h e r e 39, th e
co n d ic tio c a n o n ly go a g a in s t so m e o n e fo r s o m e th in g w h ic h c a m e to h im
o th e r t h a n o n a le g a lly s u ffic ie n t b a s is o r co m es to b e re f e r a b le to a b a s is w h ic h is n o t le g a lly s u ffic ie n t40.
A n e c le c tiv e p o in t o f v ie w is a lso v e r y p o p u la r, w h ic h c o m b in e s tw o d o c trin e s - e q u ity a n d c a u s a r e tin e n d i. A c c o rd in g to th i s v ie w co n d ictio r e s te d o n th e g e n e r a l p rin c ip le o f e q u ity a n d i t w a s g r a n te d w h e n th e re c i p ie n t c o u ld n o t p ro v e a n y j u s t r e a s o n s fo r r e te n tio n o f p e rfo rm a n c e 41.
O p p o n e n ts o f th e m o s t p o p u la r d o c trin e o f c a u sa r e te n tio n is a s a g ro u n d t h a t ju s tif ie d th e r e te n tio n o f th e p e rfo rm a n c e a r g u e t h a t th i s th e o r y s h o u ld a lso b e re je c te d 42. I n fa c t R o m a n j u r i s t s d id n o t p a y a t t e n t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r s itu a tio n o f th e r e c ip ie n t, t h e y d id n o t t r y to fin d a r g u m e n ts in h is f a v o u r to le t h im r e t a i n th e o b ject o f p e rfo rm a n c e . T h a t is w h y in t h e i r o p in io n t h is c o n c e p tio n is u s e le s s a s a c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is b e c a u s e i t c a n b e a p p lie d to a n y c la im b a s e d o n a n y le g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p n o t o n ly to u n ju s t e n r i c h m e n t 43. I n e v e r y s i t u a t i o n w e c a n te ll t h a t th e d e f e n d a n t s h o u ld g iv e s o m e th in g b a c k i f h e d o e s n o t h a v e a n y j u s t i f i e d g r o u n d s fo r i ts r e te n tio n , so t h i s c o n c e p tio n d o es n o t d is tin g u is h u n ju s t e n r ic h m e n t fro m a n y o th e r claim s.
I h a v e j u s t m e n t i o n e d o n l y t h e m o s t p o p u l a r c o n c e p t i o n s o f
c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is i n R o m a n law , b u t a p a r t fro m th e m t h e r e a r e c o n
36 A. Pernice, Marcus Antistius Labeo..., p. 218 f.; I. Koschembahr-Lyskowski, Condictio, vol. 1, p. 182; E. Rabel, Grundzüge des römischen Privatrecht, [in:] Enzyklopädie der Rechtswis
senschaft, vol. 1, 1915, p. 399 f.; F. Schwarz, op. cit., p. 210 f.; A. Simonius, op. cit., p. 161 f.;
G. Astuti, Azioni do aricchimento (Premessa storica). Tradizione romanistica e civilta giuridica
europea 3, Napoli 1984, p. 1786; A. Wacke, Actio rerum amotarum, Köln - Graz 1963, p. 110;
A. d’Ors, Creditum, RE, Suppl. 10, 1965, p. 1158; J. G. Wolf, Causa stipulationis, Weimar 1970, p. 33; A. Watson, Roman Private Law around 200 BC, Edinburgh 1971, p. 125; T. Mayer-Maly,
Römisches Privatrecht, Wien - New York 1999, p. 155.
37 Ulpianus D.12.5.6; Papinianus D.12.6.66. 38 Marcianus D.25.2.25.
39 Gaius D.24.1.6. 40 Ulpianus D.12.7.1.3.
41 P. Frezza, Ius gentium, RIDA 1949, nr 2, p. 292; H. Coing, Zum Einfluß der Philosophie des
Aristoteles auf die Entwicklung des römischen Rechts, ZSS 1952, nr 69, p. 24 f.; idem, Zur Lehre...,
p. 396, E. H. Kaden, Das Schriftum der Jahre 1950-53 zur römischen Bereicherungslehre, ZSS 1954, nr 71, p. 586 f.; M. Kaser, Zur „iusa causa traditionis“, BIDR 1961, nr. 3, p. 61; idem, Ius
gentium, Köln - Weimar - Wien 1993, p. 163 f.; R. Zimmermann, op. cit., p. 852 f.
42 S. E. Wunner, Der Begriff causa und der Tatbestand der condictio indebiti, „Romanitas“ 1970, nr 9, p. 479; H. Jansen, op. cit., p. 122.
c e p tio n s o f f id e s 44, q u a s i- c o n tr a c t45, r e a l c o n tr a c t46, h o w ev er, th e s e th e o r ie s a r e e i t h e r in th e m in o r ity o r h a v e a lr e a d y b e e n d is a p p ro v e d m a n y y e a rs ag o 47.
A s I h a v e a lr e a d y s a id so m e R o m a n is ts d e n y th e e x is te n c e o f a n y co m m o n g r o u n d s fo r c o n d ic tio in R o m a n la w e v e n in th e fie ld lim ite d to u n ju s t e n r ic h m e n t, le t a lo n e a p p lic a tio n o f t h is a c tio n o u ts id e th is fie ld 48. I n p a r t i c u la r, th e co n d ic tio o f c a u sa fu r t i v a c a u s e s m a n y in e x p lic a b le p ro b le m s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b e c a u s e i t h a d m a n y d is tin g u is h in g f e a tu r e s , w h ic h do n o t fit a n y c o m m o n c o n c e p tio n 49. H o w ev er, e v e n th e s e r e s e a r c h e r s do n o t ex c lu d e t h a t i t is p o s s ib le to e s t a b l i s h a c o m m o n g r o u n d fo r a p a r t i c u l a r ty p e o f c o n d ic tio in a ll c a s e s w h e re th e p a r t i c u l a r ty p e w a s a p p lie d 50. T h a t is w h y in m y o p in io n i t is p r o f ita b le to s e a r c h fo r th is c o m m o n g r o u n d e v e n if th e r e is n o t c a u s a co m m o n fo r a ll ty p e s c o n d ic tio n e s . To s u m u p , i t is v e r y d iffic u lt to p ro v e t h a t th e r e w a s a co m m o n g ro u n d fo r th e re c o v e ry o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t in R o m a n la w a n d to p ro v e t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e p tio n p r e v a ils o v e r o th e r s . E v e n th e m o s t p o p u la r th e o r y o f
c a u s a r e tin e n d i is n o t c o n v in c in g e n o u g h to a c c e p t i t w ith o u t r e s e r v a tio n as
co m m o n g r o u n d fo r a ll u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t c la im s . I t s e e m s t h a t R o m a n j u r i s t s u s e d a r g u m e n ts o f v e ry d if f e r e n t n a t u r e to j u s tif y th e c la im s , w h ic h is
w h y th e s e a r g u m e n ts c a n n o t b e r e d u c e d to a sin g le id e a .
F o r th e a fo re m e n tio n e d r e a s o n s I s h a r e th e p o in t o f v ie w o f A lfred O h a n o w ic z t h a t th e R o m a n j u r i s t s d id n o t m a n a g e to o v erco m e th e f r a g m e n t a r y r e g u la tio n o f p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s a n d d id n o t fin d a n y c o m m o n p rin c ip le t h a t c a n le t r e s t i t u t i o n o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t r e s t o n a u n ifo rm le g a l s tr u c tu - r e 51. I n A lfre d O h a n o w ic z ’s o p in io n R o m a n s d id n o t m a n a g e to c r e a te a n y d is tin c t i n s t i t u t i o n o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t; h o w ev er, t h e y p e rc e iv e d th e n e e d to p r o te c t th e a g g rie v e d p a r t y in p a r t i c u l a r s itu a tio n s 52.
44 A. Pernice, Marcus Antistius Labeo, p. 413; I. Koschembahr-Lyskowski, Condictio, vol. 1, p. 24 ff.
45 R. Leonhard, Institutionen des römischen Rechts, 1894, p. 430. 46 S. Hähnchen, op. cit., p. 32 f.
47 On the aforementioned theories: F. Bore, Die Voraussetzungen der condictio causa data
causa non secuta des Gemeinen Rechts, Berlin 1904, p. 11 f.; S. Hähnchen, op. cit., p. 33.
48 N. Jansen, op. cit., p. 118 f.; C. Sanfilippo, Condictio indebiti. Il fondamento dell’obliga-
zione da indebito, Milano 1943, p. 13 f.
49 On the condictio ex causa furtiva see e.g. D. Liebs, op. cit., p. 169 ff., W. Pika, Ex causa
furtiva condicere im klassischen römischen Recht, Berlin 1988, passim, with a bibliography
there.
50 Cf. F. Bore, op. cit., p. 19.
51 A. Ohanowicz, Niesluszne wzbogacenie, [in:] idem, Wybor prac, Warszawa 2007, p. 717.
3. Common grou n d for c o n d ic tio in 19th and 20th cen tu ry
d octrine
F i r s t o f a ll i t m u s t b e s tr e s s e d t h a t th e is s u e o f co m m o n g r o u n d for u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t c la im s is s till p r e s e n t in th e d is c u s s io n s o n c o n te m p o r a r y c o n c e p tio n s o f t h is in s t i t u t i o n in v a r io u s E u r o p e a n s ta te s . W h a t is m o re , i t is p re c is ly th e s e a r c h fo r m o d e rn co m m o n c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is t h a t h a s c o n tr ib u te d to t h e c r e a tio n o f a u n if o rm in s t i t u t i o n o f u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t t h a t re p la c e d t h e p re v io u s c a s u is tic a p p r o a c h 53. T h is is s u e w a s h ig h ly p o p u la r e s p e c ia lly in th e 1 9 th c e n tu r y a n d th e th e o r ie s p ro p o s e d b y 1 9 th c e n tu r y d o c trin e w e re s tr o n g ly in f lu e n c e d b y t h e R o m a n c o n c e p tio n s a n d w e re b a s e d o n th e R o m a n s o u rc e s. I t is u s e le s s to p r e s e n t a ll th e s e th e o rie s in d e ta il b e c a u s e i t w o u ld e x c e e d th e c o n fin e d fra m e w o rk o f t h is p a p e r, w h ic h is w h y I w ill co n fin e m y s e lf o n ly to th e p r e s e n ta tio n o f th e m o s t i m p o r ta n t th e o r ie s in v e ry b ro a d o u tlin e .T h e th e o r ie s o f c a u sa c o n d ic tio n is c a n b e d iv id e d in th r e e g ro u p s , c a lle d th e o r ie s o f s u r r o g a tio n , th e o r ie s o f c a u s a o r c o n tr a c t a n d th e o r ie s o f e q u ity 54.
T h e m o s t im p o r t a n t o f th e th e o r ie s o f s u r r o g a tio n is th e th e o r y o f v in d i c a tio n , a c c o rd in g to w h ic h c o n d ic tio s u b s t i t u t e s v in d ic a tio n in th o s e s i t u a tio n s w h e re i t is im p o s s ib le to a p p ly rei v in d ic a tio , e.g. b e c a u s e o f th e c o n s u m p tio n o r a lie n a tio n of a th in g 55.
T h e p e c u lia r fo rm o f th e th e o r ie s o f s u r r o g a tio n is th e th e o ry a c c o rd in g to w h ic h a n e n r ic h e d p a r t y w h o r e t a i n s t h e o b ject o f u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t c o m m its a t o r t 56, a p a r t fro m w h ic h w e s h o u ld m e n tio n B. W in d s c h e id ’s th e o r y o f p r e m is e (V o ra u s s e tz u n g ) a n d t h e th e o r y o f r ig h t o f w ith d r a w a l57. T h e b a s ic a s s u m p tio n o f c o n tr a c tu a l th e o r ie s is t h a t th e c la im is b a s e d o n th e d e fe c tiv e c a u s a o r la c k o f c a u sa of a le g a l tr a n s a c t i o n to th e in c r e m e n t o f a s s e ts . C a u sa is u n d e r s to o d a s a le g a lly r e le v a n t p u rp o s e o f p e r f o r m a n c e ; h o w ev e r, n o t e v e ry s u b je c tiv e p u rp o s e o f p e rfo rm a n c e c a n b e r e g a r d e d a s c a u s a b u t o n ly th i s p u rp o s e w h ic h is d e te r m in e d b y its fu n c tio n (e.g. c a u s a s o lv e n d i, c o n d itio n is im p le n d a e , d o tis )58.
53 Ibidem, p. 917.
54 Cf. A. Ohanowicz, Niesłuszne wzbogacenie, p. 917 ff.; idem, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1981), [in:] idem, Wybór prac, p. 1009 f.; E. Łętowska, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie, Warszawa 2000, p. 8 ff.; P. Mostowik, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie, „Studia Prawa Prywatnego” 2007, vol. 2(5), p. 46 f.
55 A. Ohanowicz, Niesłuszne wzbogacenie, p. 917 ff.; idem, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1981), p. 1009; E. Łętowska, op. cit., p. 8 f.; P. Mostowik, op. cit., p. 46.
56 A. Ohanowicz, Niesłuszne wzbogacenie, p. 918 ff.; idem, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1981), p. 1009; E. Łętowska, op. cit., p. 8 f.; P. Mostowik, op. cit. p. 46.
57 A. Ohanowicz, Niesłuszne wzbogacenie, p. 920 ff.
58 Ibidem, p. 921 ff.; A. Ohanowicz, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1981), p. 1009 f.; P. Mostowik, op. cit., p. 46.
T h e m a jo r ity o f t h e s u p p o r te r s o f c o n tr a c tu a l th e o r ie s com e to t h e co n c lu s io n t h a t i t is im p o s s ib le to c o n s tr u e o n e u n ifo rm g r o u n d fo r a ll c a s e s of u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t, b u t th e c o n c e p t o f c a u s a c a n b e a p p lie d to th o s e c a s e s w h e re e n r ic h m e n t w a s c a u s e d b y th e im p o v e ris h e d p a r t y a n d in o th e r c a s e s o n e s h o u ld s e a r c h fo r a n o th e r d if f e r e n t g r o u n d o f la c k o f ju s tif ic a tio n of e n r ic h m e n t59.
T h e th e o r ie s o f e q u ity e m p h a s iz e th e e th ic a l g r o u n d o f t h e o b lig a tio n of r e s t i t u t i o n 60. I n th e lig h t of th e s e th e o r ie s e n r ic h m e n t s h o u ld b e r e s to r e d if, in s p ite o f th e e x is te n c e o f a fo rm a l g r o u n d fo r g a in in g o f th e b e n e fit, th e e n r ic h m e n t in frin g e s th e m o ra l s ta n d a r d s , w h ic h m a k e s i t u n f a i r 61.
T h e m o s t p r o m in e n t s u p p o r te r s o f e q u ity th e o r y in P o lis h d o c trin e w e re Ig n a c y K o sc h e m b a h r-Ł y sk o w sk i a n d F ry d e r y k Zoll. Ig n a c y K o sc h e m b a h r-Ł y - s k o w sk i, w h o d id th o r o u g h r e s e a r c h in to th e R o m a n c o n c e p t o f c o n d ic tio 62, c a m e to th e c o n c lu sio n t h a t th e c o n c e p t w a s b a s e d o n th e n o tio n o f bo n a
fid e s a n d h e a p p e a le d fo r th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e th e o r y o f e q u ity i n c o n te m p o
r a r y la w 63. F r y d e r y k Zoll a p p lie d th e c o n c e p t o f u n f a ir n e s s to th o s e c a s e s a lso w h e re th e e n r ic h m e n t d id n o t in fr in g e th e p o s itiv e la w b u t w a s c o n tr a r y to th e m o ra l a n d e th ic a l s t a n d a r d s .
I n th e P o lis h C ode o f o b lig a tio n s , a d o p te d i n 1933, u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t w a s r e g u la te d in a r t. 123 a n d s u b s e q u e n t p ro v is io n s . T h e p e c u lia r ity o f th e P o lis h c o n c e p tio n r e s te d o n th e fa c t t h a t th e n o tio n o f u n d u e p e r fo rm a n c e w a s s e p a r a te d fro m th e u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t64.
T h e a u th o r s o f th e C ode o f o b lig a tio n s u s e d th e n o tio n “u n ju s t e n ric h m e n t” a n d acco rd in g to th e g e n e ra l p ro v isio n o f a r t. 123 th e p e rs o n w ho u n ju s tly g a in e d b e n e f it a t th e e x p e n s e o f a n o th e r w a s o b lig e d to r e s to r e th e b e n e f it in k in d , in th e c a s e w h e re i t w a s n o t p o s s ib le to r e s to r e t h e v a lu e o f th e b e n e fit.
T h e k e y n o tio n o f P o lis h r e g u la tio n w a s “u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t”. T h e n o tio n i t s e l f s u g g e s te d th e re fe re n c e to th e th e o r y o f eq u ity . A ctu ally , i t is n o t r ig h t to c la im t h a t t h e c o n c e p tio n o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t i n th e C ode o f o b lig a tio n s w a s b a s e d o n e q u ity 65.
T h e u s e of th e n o tio n w a s ju s tif ie d b y th e fa c t t h a t th e n o tio n “w ith o u t le g a l b a s is ” r e f e r r e d to th e c o n c e p t o f a le g a l t r a n s a c t i o n to th e in c r e m e n t o f a s s e ts w h ic h m a d e i t too n a rro w , b e c a u s e u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t c o u ld a lso t a k e p la c e w ith o u t t h e le g a l tr a n s a c tio n .
59 A. Ohanowicz, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1981), p. 1010. 60 E. Łętowska, op. cit., p. 11; P. Mostowik, op. cit., p. 46.
61 Por. A. Ohanowicz, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1981), p. 1011; E. Łętowska, op. cit., p. 11. 62 I. Koschembahr-Łyskowski, Die condictio als Bereicherungsklage im klassischen römi
schen Recht, Weimar 1903 (vol. I), 1907 (vol. II).
63 I. Koschembahr-Łyskowski, Podstawy skargi o zwrot „niesłusznego wzbogacenia", „Kwartalnik Prawa Cywilnego i Handlowego” 1916, p. 1 ff.
64 For a general suryer see P. Księżak, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie. Art. 405-414 k.c.
Komentarz, Warszawa 2007, p. 29.
T h e n e x t a r g u m e n t w a s t h a t th e n o tio n o f le g a l b a s is w a s u s e le s s in re fe re n c e to e n r ic h m e n t o w in g to th e fa c t t h a t th e e n r ic h m e n t co u ld be le g a lly ju s tif ie d in s p ite o f th e la c k o f le g a l b a s is , e.g. in th e c a s e o f a b s tr a c t le g a l tr a n s a c t i o n 66.
D e s p ite th e a fo r e m e n tio n e d e x p la n a to r y s t a t e m e n t o f th e C ode o f o b lig a tio n s th e r e w e re o p in io n s in t h e d o c trin e w h ic h r e f e r r e d th e r e g u la tio n to th e th e o r y of fa irn e s s . T h e b r o a d c o n c e p tio n o f u n f a ir e n r ic h m e n t w a s p ro p o s e d b y F r y d e r y k Z oll, w h o r e g a r d e d th e c la im fo r r e s t i t u t i o n a s a g e n e r a l re m e d y w h ic h could, b y m e a n s o f th e b a s ic p r in c ip le s o f ju s tic e , h e a l a lso th o s e w o u n d s w h ic h w e re u n f a ir ly c a u s e d b y th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e le g a l p ro v is io n s , e v e n i f th e p o s itiv e la w d id n o t e n v is a g e a n y c la im s 67.
A lso J a n N a m itk ie w ic z p o in te d o u t th e m e a n in g o f th e th e o r y o f e q u ity to th e a p p lic a tio n o f t h e p ro v is io n o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t. I n h is o p in io n th e t a s k o f r e g u la tio n o f u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t a n d u n d u e p e rf o rm a n c e w a s to e lim in a te t h e t r a n s f e r o f p r o p e r ty w h ic h w a s ju s tif ie d n e i t h e r b y la w n o r eq u ity . T h e r e s p o n s ib ility b a s e d o n a r t. 123 o f th e C ode o f o b lig a tio n s to o k p la c e p ro v id e d t h a t th e r e w a s a n in c r e m e n t o f p r o p e r ty to th e d e tr im e n t o f a n o th e r ’s p r o p e r ty a n d th e in c r e m e n t w a s n o t ju s tif ie d b y la w o r b y eq u ity . I n N a m itk ie w ic z ’s o p in io n e n r ic h m e n t w a s u n j u s t i f i t c o u ld b e ju s tif ie d n e i t h e r b y la w n o r m o ra l s t a n d a r d 68. T h e m o s t p r o m in e n t o p p o n e n t o f t h e th e o r y o f e q u ity a s a g r o u n d fo r u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t c la im s w a s A lfre d O h a n o w ic z . I n h is v ie w t h e n o tio n of “u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t” w a s too b ro a d , b e c a u s e i t le t th e a p p lic a tio n o f th e r e le v a n t p ro v is io n s b e e x te n d e d w ith o u t c le a r c o n fin e s a n d b e c a u s e i t u s e d s u c h v a g u e a n d b a s ic c r i t e r i a a s p r in c ip le s of ju s tic e , e q u ita b le la w o r e v e n in tu itiv e la w ; c o n se q u e n tly , i t le ft th e ju d g e too m u c h d is c r e tio n 69.
A lfre d O h a n o w ic z a s s e s s e d t h a t th e r e g u la tio n o f th e C ode o f o b lig a tio n s w a s n o t, in c o n tr a s t to its n a m e , b a s e d on th e p r in c ip le o f e q u ity , b u t w a s b a s e d o n th e la c k o f le g a l ju s tif ic a tio n o f in c r e m e n t. H e r e g a r d e d th e j u s t i f i c a tio n o f e n r ic h m e n t a s le g a l t i t l e t h a t ju s tif ie s th e e n r ic h m e n t; th is title co u ld r e s u l t fro m t h e le g a l t r a n s a c tio n c o n c lu d e d b y th e e n r ic h e d p a r t y w ith th e im p o v e ris h e d p a r t y o r a t h i r d p e r s o n o r fro m o th e r e v e n ts w h ic h h a d th i s le g a l e ffe c t70.
A lfre d O h a n o w ic z c a m e to th e c o n c lu sio n t h a t th e v a g u e n o tio n o f e q u ity o r in c o m p a tib ility w ith th e a im s o f ju s tic e co u ld n e v e r ju s tif y a c la im fo r th e
66 R. Longschamps de Berier, Uzasadnienie projektu kodeksu zobowiązań, vol. 1, Warsza wa 1936, p. 177 ff.
67 F. Zoll, Zobowiązania w zarysie, Warszawa 1948, p. 111 ff.
68 J. Namitkiewicz, Kodeks zobowiązań. Komentarz dla praktyki, Łódź 1949, p. 180. 69 A. Ohanowicz, Niesłuszne wzbogacenie, p. 797.
70 Ibidem, p. 798; A. Ohanowicz, Niektóre problemy niesłusznego wzbogacenia, [in:] idem,
r e s t i t u t i o n o f e n r ic h m e n t, b e c a u s e i t m a d e th e c la im d e p e n d e n t o n th e a r b i t r a l c o u r t’s d e c isio n 71. F o r th e a fo re m e n tio n e d r e a s o n s A lfre d O h a n o w ic z c a m p a ig n e d fo r th e c h a n g e o f th e n a m e o f th e in s titu tio n ; u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t s h o u ld b e re p la c e d b y u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t u n d e r s to o d a s e n r ic h m e n t w ith o u t le g a l b a s is 72. T h e n e w n a m e o f th e in s t i t u t i o n d e p riv e d i t o f fa ls e a p p e a r a n c e as a g e n e r a l re m e d y fo r a ll im p e rfe c tio n s of th e le g a l s y s te m a n d g a v e it a p r o p e r m e a s u r e a s o n e o f th e re m e d ie s a im in g a t th e p ro te c tio n a g a in s t u n ju s tif ie d in c r e m e n t o f p r o p e r ty a t th e e x p e n s e o f a n o t h e r 73. J u d ic ia l d e c is io n s fo llo w ed th e c o n c e p tio n t h a t t h e e n r ic h m e n t w a s u n j u s t w h e re i t d id n o t h a v e le g a l ju s tif ic a tio n ; th e r e f o r e th e c o u r ts s e a rc h e d fo r th e le g a l b a s is o f e n r ic h m e n t, e.g. th e P o lis h S u p r e m e C o u r t r e g a r d e d th e c o n tr a c t o f lo a n a n d c o n tr a c t o f g ift a s th e p r o p e r le g a l b a s is o f e n r ic h m e n t74. N e v e r th e le s s , o n e c a n a lso fin d ju d g m e n ts b a s e d o n th e th e o r y o f e q u ity , for in s ta n c e th e S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t th e a im o f th e u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t w a s to h e a l th e w o u n d s in flic te d b y th e la w w h e re th e t r a n s f e r o f le g a l b e n e f it fro m th e p r o p e r ty o f o n e p e r s o n to a n o th e r ’s i n s p ite o f b e in g fo rm a l ly le g a l in f r in g e d th e p rin c ip le s o f e q u ity 75.
4. U n ju stified en rich m en t in th e con tem porary
P o lish c iv il cod e
I n th e c u r r e n tly b in d in g P o lis h civ il code e n a c te d in 19 6 4 th e r e le v a n t in s t i t u t i o n is n a m e d u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t. A rt. 4 0 5 o f th e civ il code o p e r a te s w ith t h e g e n e r a l f o rm u la “w ho g a in s a b e n e f it a t th e e x p e n s e o f a n o th e r w ith o u t le g a l b a s is is o b lig e d to give u p th e b e n e f it in k in d or, i f i t is n o t p o ssib le , to r e t u r n its v a lu e ”.
T h e k e y n o tio n o f th e P o lis h r e g u la tio n is “le g a l b a s is ”. T h e le g a l b a s is is a b a s is w h ic h ju s tif ie s th e e n r ic h m e n t, m a k e s i t c o n s is te n t w ith th e le g a l o r d e r 76. A c c o rd in g to th e w id e s p r e a d v ie w th e r e is n o t le g a l b a s is w h e re th e b e n e f it does n o t r e s t o n th e le g a l tr a n s a c tio n , p r o v is io n o f a s t a t u t e , j u d g m e n t of th e c o u r t o r a n a d m in is tr a tiv e a c t77.
71 A. Ohanowicz, Niesłuszne wzbogacenie, p. 799.
72 A. Ohanowicz, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie w projekcie kodeksu cywilnego PRL, [in:] idem, Wybór prac, p. 955.
73 Ibidem.
74 OSP 1939, nr 17.
75 Judgement of 15th Sempember 1945 C I. 116/45, PiP 1946, nr 2, p. 120. 76 A. Ohanowicz, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1981), p. 1024.
77 K. Kołakowski, [in:] G. Bieniek, Komentarz do kodeksu cywilnego. Księga trzecia. Zobo
wiązania, vol. 1, Warszawa 2005, note 6 to art. 405; E. Łętowska, op. cit., p. 76; K. Pietrzykow
ski, [in:] K. Pietrzykowski (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz do art. 1-449 [11], vol. I, Warszawa 2005, p. 1059; W. Dubis, [in:] E. Gniewek (ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, Warszawa 2006, p. 632; P. Księżak, op. cit., p. 73.
T h e n o n c o n fo rm ity o f t r a n s f e r o f b e n e f it in t h e c a s e o f u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t r e la te s to la w a n d th e le g a l o r d e r a n d r e s t s o n th e la c k o f le g a l b a s is t h a t ju s tif ie s th e t r a n s f e r 78.
T h e s a m e c o n c e p tio n is a d o p te d in t h e c o u r t’s d e c is io n s 79. A s a r e s u l t th e P o lis h r e g u la tio n o f u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t is n o t b a s e d o n th e p r in c ip le of e q u ity b u t h a v in g a s a c e n tr a l n o tio n th e “la c k o f le g a l b a s is ” i t a p p ro a c h e s th e c a u s a l th e o rie s . T h e a d je c tiv e “u n ju s tif ie d ” s tr e s s e s m o re th e la c k o r d e fe c tiv e n e s s o f le g a l b a s is o f th e t r a n s f e r t h a n its m o ra l d is a p p r o v a l80. T h is c o n c e p tio n e x c lu d e s th e a p p lic a tio n o f a n y c r ite r io n o u ts id e th e s p h e r e o f la w 81. I n th e s e c a s e s w h e re i t is p o s s ib le to in d ic a te a le g a l b a s is th e r e is no d u ty to r e s to r e th e e n r ic h m e n t, so in p ra c tic e th e c o u r t s e a r c h e s fo r th e le g a l b a s is o f e n r ic h m e n t i n s te a d o f a s s e s s in g i f th e e n r ic h m e n t is j u s t o r u n ju s t. N o w a d a y s e q u ity c a n n o t b e s e e n a s th e s e lf-c o n ta in e d , s u ffic ie n t a n d f ir s t of a ll sp ecific e x p la n a tio n o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t, w h ic h is w h y th e th e o r y o f e q u ity is n o t d e fe n d e d to d a y 82.
5. C on clu sion s
R e g a rd le s s o f th e fa c t w h e th e r w e a c c e p t th e e x is te n c e o f o n e c o m m o n
c a u s a c o n d ic tio n is in th e R o m a n u n j u s t e n r ic h m e n t la w o r n o t, u n d o u b te d ly
t h i s is s u e a n d th e s e a r c h fo r th e c a u sa o v e r th e c e n tu r ie s c o n tr ib u te d to th e c r e a tio n o f u n ju s t e n r ic h m e n t a s a le g a l in s titu tio n . T h e a c a d e m ic s o f th e 1 9 th a n d 2 0 th c e n tu r ie s s e a r c h e d for th e co m m o n g ro u n d fo r c la im s b o th in R o m a n la w a n d in th e c o n te m p o ra ry civil law ; m o re o v e r th e y t r ie d to a p p ly th e R o m a n c o n c e p tio n in c o n te m p o ra ry la w o r a t le a s t to ju s tif y t h e i r th e o rie s by re fe re n c e s to R o m a n law. I t p ro v e s t h a t th e R o m a n la w h a s a lw a y s b e e n a so u rc e o f in s p ir a tio n fo r civ il la w r e g u la tio n a n d its a p p lic a tio n b y c o u rts .
T h e r e a r e m a n y p ro p o s e d co m m o n g r o u n d s fo r c la im s in R o m a n u n ju s t e n r ic h m e n t law , a n d in m y o p in io n it is e x tr e m e ly h a r d to p ro v e t h a t o n e o f th e th e o r ie s p r e v a ils o v e r th e o th e rs . T h e r e a r e a r g u m e n ts fo r a n d a g a in s t e a c h o f th e m o s t i m p o r ta n t th e o rie s . N e v e r th e le s s , th e th e o r y o f th e la c k o f
c a u s a r e tin e n d i s e e m s to b e th e m o s t p o p u la r, i n s p ite o f th e a f o re m e n tio n e d
c ritiq u e .
I n 19th a n d 2 0 th c e n tu r y d o c trin e th i s is s u e w a s s till d is c u s s e d ; th e r e w e re m a n y th e o r ie s w h ic h o f te n h a d t h e i r ro o ts in R o m a n law . E sp ecially ,
78 A. Ohanowicz, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1965), p. 963.
79 The judgements of Polish Supreme Court of 17th November 1998 III CKN 18/98 and 23th May 2003 III CKN 1211/00, (OSNC 2004, nr 3, p. 39).
80 E. Łętowska, op. cit., p. 15, cf. P. Księżak, op. cit., p. 8. 81 A. Ohanowicz, Bezpodstawne wzbogacenie (1965), p. 963. 82 P. Księżak, op. cit., p. 6.
th e th e o r y o f e q u ity d e riv e d fro m R o m a n la w s o u rc e s w a s v e r y p o p u la r u n til th e e n a c tm e n t o f th e civ il code in 1964.
N o w a d a y s , th e p r e v a ilin g c o n c e p tio n in P o lis h d o c tr in e is t h e la c k of le g a l b a s is ; th e is s u e o f c o m m o n g r o u n d fo r u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t c la im s is n o t so m u c h d is p u te d a s i t w a s b e fo re th e e n a c tm e n t o f th e c u r r e n tly b in d in g civ il code. To a c e r ta in e x te n t th e c o n c e p tio n o f “le g a l b a s is ” s e e m s to be s im ila r to R o m a n c a u s a r e tin e n d i, b u t o n e c a n n o t d e n y t h a t R o m a n j u r i s t s a s s e s s e d th e c a u sa r e tin e n d i fro m a c o n s id e ra b ly d iffe re n t p e rs p e c tiv e fro m th e o n e fro m w h ic h w e a s s e s s th e la c k o f le g a l b a s is now. F i r s t o f a ll th e co n c e p tio n o f c a u sa r e tin e n d i s e e m s to b e s ig n ific a n tly b r o a d e r t h a n th e c u r r e n t c o n c e p t o f le g a l b a s is d u e to t h e fa c t t h a t i t w a s n o t c o n fin e d o n ly to a r g u m e n ts o f p u r e ly le g a l n a t u r e a n d to o k in to c o n s id e r a tio n a lso o th e r v a lu e s . Secondly, R o m a n j u r i s t s p a id a t t e n t i o n to th e fa c t w h e th e r th e r e w as a g r o u n d fo r r e te n tio n o f th e b e n e f it w h e r e a s c o n te m p o ra ry d o c tr in e a t t a c h e s m o re im p o r ta n c e to t h e le g a l a s s e s s m e n t o f th e t r a n s f e r its e lf, n o t so m u c h to th e s e a r c h fo r th e g r o u n d fo r r e te n tio n . T h e v a s t m a jo r ity of th e R o m a n a p p lic a tio n o f c a u sa r e tin e d i r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n t c a s e s o f u n d u e p e r fo rm a n c e w h e r e a s th e c o n te m p o r a r y i n s t i t u t i o n o f u n ju s tif ie d e n r ic h m e n t is a p p lie d to th e e n r ic h m e n t “in a n o th e r m a n n e r ” a s w ell, w h ic h m e a n s i t is n o t lim ite d o n ly to u n d u e p e rfo rm a n c e .
S treszczen ie
C e le m n in ie js z e g o o p ra c o w a n ia j e s t p r e z e n ta c ja p ro b le m u tzw . c a u sa c o n d ic tio n is (tj. w s p ó ln e j w s z y s tk im c o n d ic tio n e s p o d s ta w y r o s z c z e n ia ) w p ra w ie r z y m s k im i u k a z a n ie a k tu a ln o ś c i te g o z a g a d n ie n ia w p ra w ie w s p ó ł c z e sn y m , w szc zeg ó ln o ści w p ra w ie p o lsk im . A u to r p r e z e n tu je w z a ry s ie w s z y s tk ie is to tn e p o g lą d y w y ra ż o n e n a te n te m a t w r o m a n is ty c e , d o c h o d z ą c do w n io s k u , że tr u d n o w s k a z a ć w s p ó ln ą j e d n ą p o d s ta w ę łą c z ą c ą w s z y s tk ie rz y m s k ie c o n d ic tio n e s, n ie m n ie j n ajw ię c e j z w o le n n ik ó w m a te o r ia b r a k u tzw . c a u s a r e tin e n d i (tj. p rz y c z y n y u z a s a d n i a ją c e j z a tr z y m a n ie w z b o g a c e n ia p rz e z w zb o g aco n eg o ), choć i t a k o n c e p c ja b u d z i z a s tr z e ż e n ia . W części p o św ięco n ej p r a w u w s p ó łc z e s n e m u sz c z e g ó ln ą u w a g ę z w ra c a n a p o g lą d y d o k tr y n y s fo rm u ło w a n e w c z a s a c h o b o w ią z y w a n ia k o d e k s u z o b o w ią z a ń z 1933 r. i k o d e k s u cyw ilnego.W k o n k lu z ji a u t o r d o c h o d zi do w n io s k u , że w sp ó łc z e sn e te o r ie d o ty czące w sp ó ln e j p o d s ta w y r o s z c z e ń z t y t u ł u b e z p o d s ta w n e g o w z b o g a c e n ia s ą s iln ie in s p ir o w a n e m y ś lą ju r y s tó w rz y m s k ic h . W t e n sp o só b ź ró d ła p r a w a rz y m sk ieg o p rz y c z y n iły się do p o w s ta n ia b e z p o d s ta w n e g o w z b o g a c e n ia ja k o in s ty tu c ji p ra w n e j.
