Bartolo, a father took out a loan to maintain his children yet passed away without having repaid the loan.
Lastly, the advantage procured by the defendant must have an unjust character, i.e. The Court therefore concluded that since Pace had always intended to use the materials to improve the tenement, then the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. The beneficial intention has to subsist ab initio. However, if after the original act the third party has to intervene again to change the destination of the original act for the benefit of the defendant then the action is unsuccessful. The Court, referring to Baudry-Lacantinerie, a major exponent of the actio de in rem verso, ruled that if the original act done by the third party is intended to cause a benefit to the defendant then the actio de rem in verso succeeds. The defendant argued that there was no link of causality between the two. The latter instituted an unjustified enrichment action against the owner of the tenement, claiming that he had procured a benefit since the value of the tenement had increased. Pace bought materials from the plaintiff to carry out repairs and improvements to the tenement yet became insolvent without having paid the plaintiff. Testaferrata Bonnici where a certain Pace was occupying a tenement owned by the defendant. When only two individuals are involved, the nexus is easily ascertained yet issues can crop up when there a third party intermediary enters the scenario. Secondly, there must be a causal link between the activity of the plaintiff and the enrichment procured by the individual from whom compensation is being sought. The mere fact that as a result of the plaintiffs’ intervention, the assets of the beneficiary did not diminish constituted an indirect enrichment which amounts to a negative value. In Grech vs Gauci, the Court provided that there is still enrichment despite the fact that the assets of the beneficiary did not increase.
The first basic element is the notion of enrichment. Testaferrata Bonnici, the Court laid down the three fundamental and cumulative elements for this action. In one of the earliest judgments on the matter, Said vs. However, the actio de in rem verso is a subsidiary action and can only be employed when the issue is not governed by contract, law or any other obligation. One of the main strong suits of this action is its flexibility in that it can cater for various situations and seeks to provide a remedy to anyone who has been wronged in whatever shape or form. Micallef, “ li terġa’ trodd l-ekwilibriju bejn il-patrimonju ta’ min ikun stagħna u dak tal-parti li tkun għamlet jew nefqet spejjeż biex dan ikun seħħ.” The aim of this action is described eloquently by the Court in Bartolo vs. Owing to its quasi-contract nature, the obligation does not arise from a contract and therefore, in line with the principle of objective justice forming the basis of this action, one is entitled to compensation regardless of consent and capacity. One should be compensated for the benefit gained by an individual without a just cause to the detriment of the former.
The notions of equity and fairness serve as the foundation of this action.
#Actio de in rem verso code
Window = 'AOuZoY6OIGuKb0zNXlqBcmYM8jObElmxCA:1695715048498' _WidgetManager._Init('//_WidgetManager.The action of unjustified enrichment, also known as the actio de in rem verso, dates back to Roman Law and despite the fact that it was formally included in the Maltese Civil Code in 2007 by means of Article 1028A, it has always been accepted by the Maltese Courts. © ASESORÍA LEGAL GRATIS 2023 - Developed by AVVOCATO
0 kommentar(er)
