Rückabwicklung über Bereicherungsrecht
Englisch translation: reversal [of transaction] under the provisions on unjust enrichment
| Glossareintrag (aus Frage unten abgeleitet) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 06:40 Jul 17, 2002 |
| Übersetzungen Deutsch > Englisch [PRO] Law/Patents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
|  Ausgewählte Antwort von: Beate Lutzebaeck Neuseeland Local time: 10:33 | ||||
Grading comment
| |||||
| Zusammenfassung aller eingereichten Antworten | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 +2 | reversal [of transaction] under the provisions on unjust enrichment |
|
Antworten
17 Min. Antwortsicherheit: 
Zustimmung (Netto): +2
Zustimmung (Netto): +2reversal [of transaction] under the provisions on unjust enrichment Erklärung: You have been very stingy with context which doesn't make it any easier to help you. Obviously some legal transactions (Rechtsgeschäfte) have taken place and these are now [being] reversed. This reversal is intended to take place (or does, in fact, take place) using the provisions of German law governing unjust enrichment (ss 812 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB)). Note that Bereicherung is the same as ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung (=unjust enrichment). Under German law, it can sometimes happen that a transfer of assets is legally valid although the legal cause for the transaction has ceased to exist. This is predominantly the case in real estate transactions, where one party may withdraw from a contract for purchase and sale of a property, rendering the contract invalid. However, the subsequent invalidity of the contract will not affect the transfer of title (this is a specific feature of German property law), which means that the transfer of title took place without legal cause. The provisions on unjust enrichment allow the reversal of this clearly untenable situation, i.e. the reversal of transfer of title. -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 2002-07-17 09:47:41 (GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Response to Klaus: Unjust enrichment may not be a familiar legal concept to all translators, but is a well known concept within the legal community. The courts (of *justice*) are very much concerned with matters of just(ice) - whether they dispense it, is a different question. As the asker is clearly (and this is obvious despite the scarcity of context) dealing with a civil law concept (as opposed to criminal law), the question is not whether the enrichment is unlawful but whether it is just. As I\'ve explained, the circumstances constituting the enrichment are perfectly lawful, but they are not just (this is why the German legislator has developed the concept of ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung). For your edification, Klaus, a quote from Webster\'s Dictionary of the Law: \"unjust enrichment = any situation in which a person receives a benefit that properly belongs to another or retains, without paying for it, a benefit that in justice should be paid for; for example, receiving delivery of goods intended for another, or refusing to pay a doctor who provided necessary emergency care while one was unconscious.\" To asker: Under Anglo-American law, the usual remedy or order for the prevention of unjust enrichment is \"restitution\", usually involving the defendant giving up some benefit that in justice should have gone to the plaintiff or paying for some benefit received from the plaintiff. It may also involve giving back a specific piece of property (specific restitution) or other forms of relief tailored to the case at hand. In your case, the Rückabwicklung may very well correspond to restitution - lacking context, this cannot be determined with certainty. Prof. exp. as German/NZ lawyer |
| |