Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 10

Tham khảo tài liệu 'unjustified enrichment: key issues in comparative part 10', ngoại ngữ, anh ngữ phổ thông phục vụ nhu cầu học tập, nghiên cứu và làm việc hiệu quả | rationality nationality and taxonomy 677 explained as based upon unjustified enrichment 115 but the matter awaits exploration. 7. Unjustified enrichment and bankruptcy Legal systems will generally not allow an enrichment claim to prevail over the right of a bona fide purchaser for value from the enrichmentdebtor but may sometimes allow an enrichment claim to prevail over the enrichment-debtor s creditors on his bankruptcy.116 Bankruptcy involves at least two transactional links in a transmission chain. The first link involves a benefit passing from an unsecured creditor to the bankrupt by the creditor s transfer or the bankrupt s wrongful misappropriation. The second link involves the sequestration or adjudication in bankruptcy transferring the bankrupt s assets to the trustee for the creditors. Where a creditor has a personal right against the bankrupt say for the unpaid price of goods or services he cannot claim in the debtor s bankruptcy for a preference for his claim on the ground that the general creditors have been unjustifiably enriched by their sequestration or attachment in the bankruptcy proceedings of the goods or the product of the services.117 This is consonant with the principle of the parity of the general creditors of an insolvent and the fact that the vesting in the trustee in bankruptcy is not sine causa.118 Much more frequently litigated is the question whether a right to the redress of unjustified enrichment in the first transactional link should have a priority or preference in the enrichment-debtor s subsequent bankruptcy in competition with his general unsecured creditors. This should depend on which specific ground of redress unjust factor of the bankrupt s unjustified enrichment through the first transactional link is relied on by the enrichment-creditor.119 English lawyers speak of the need to examine 115 Cf. R. Chambers Resulting trusts 1997 who contends that in English law resulting trusts reverse unjust enrichment. 116 Why the .