Unjust Enrichment
Dr_Revenue
In order to accustom a regular user, whether a paying customer or not, with the doctrines and torts in Common Law, I have decided to publish several articles, absent of any regulatory misleading representations by the defendant and therefore addressing most applicable contractual remedies.
Why is it the Common Law?
Terms of Service - 11 Our Liability - 11.1 “…To the extent permitted by law, we expressly exclude:
11.1.1 all conditions, warranties and other terms which might otherwise be implied by statute, common law or the law of equity; and
11.1.2 any liability for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage incurred by any Citizen in connection with our Website…”
Section 11 is abundantly supplied with hollow words except for introduction of the common law.
Concept Summary
The doctrine of unjust enrichment requires proof of three elements:
1. an enrichment to the defendant (guess who)
2. a corresponding deprivation to the plaintiff (must be a paying customer)
3. the absence of any juristic reason for the defendant’s enrichment (the lack of defendant’s willingness to perform renders no juristic reason effective)
You be the judge.
Dr_Revenue’s Law Office
Comments
v
vote
We've had legal stuff before, they just ignore it, nobody is going to take them to court.
That's what 'Linden' thought as well, read my Bragg v Linden article.
vote
Punoljetni glas - mislim glas 18 🙂
vote doktore
pgledao jesam citat necu........
s 123
al hajd subat cu iako nista ne razumijem,he he
v
prevedi na naš 😃
Niks feršten ali svejedno Velik Vote! : D
od svega jedino baner nekaj vrijedi
xD
Rebelsy, Croatian translation is coming soon. xD
ko će to sad...waiting for translation
v 63 s imaš