Also known as: nemo locupletari debet aliena iactura · unjust enrichment · restitution · ex iniuria ius non oritur
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A principle of equity that no person should obtain a benefit through the loss or injury of another. The maxim requires restitution whenever one party has been unjustly enriched at another's expense. Courts apply it to restore the status quo by compelling the enriched party to disgorge the benefit.
Jeffrey Jha negligently damaged Julia Jensen's property. The resulting compensatory award reimbursed Jensen for expenses already paid from joint funds. Jha's retention of the benefit would leave Jensen uncompensated for the harm he caused.
Jerome Jackson's will attempted to leave a house held in tenancy by the entirety to a third party. Upon his death while still married, title passed by operation of law to his spouse. Equity refused to impose a constructive trust that would have enriched the third party at the spouse's expense.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jada Jones and Javier Jimenez contracted under a shared mistaken assumption about a basic fact. Reformation and restitution restored the parties to their pre-contract positions. The court prevented one side from retaining a windfall created by the mutual error.
Jessica Jacobs violated a recorded servitude benefiting Jaffe Securities' land. The court awarded restitution measured by the benefit Jacobs obtained from the breach. This remedy prevented her from profiting at the dominant owner's expense.
A lawyer learned that a colleague had taken client funds and arranged private restitution. The duty to report the misconduct to disciplinary authorities overrode the client's wish for silence. Allowing retention of the benefit would have rewarded the serious breach.
Jenkins Apparel conferred a benefit on Jung BioTech through part performance of a contract later avoided. The court measured the restitution award by the reasonable value of what the recipient obtained. This prevented Jung BioTech from retaining the benefit without paying for it.
The maxim supplies the equitable foundation for restitution even when no enforceable contract exists. It focuses on preventing one party from retaining a benefit obtained through another's detriment rather than on breach of promise.
No. The maxim applies whenever one party has been unjustly enriched at another's expense, regardless of whether the enrichment resulted from intentional misconduct or from mistake or other circumstances.
…public policies that are furthered by its assertion of jurisdiction. First, the State has a substantial interest in providing restitution for its local corporations that allegedly have been victimized by fiduciary misconduct, even if the managerial decisions occurred outside the State. The importance of this general state…