tailieunhanh - Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 8

Giả sử có một kết nối độc quyền đầy đủ, là nhảy cóc rõ ràng hoặc thực? Ngay cả những người tin tưởng mạnh mẽ trong một yêu cầu của sự hiểu biết riêng hoặc trực tiếp nội dung để chấp nhận các tiếp cận lâu dài của đối số độc quyền. | direct and indirect enrichment in ENGLISH law 517 b Is this genuine leapfrogging Supposing that there is a sufficient proprietary connection is the leapfrogging apparent or real Even those who believe strongly in a requirement of privity or directness are content to accept the long reach of the proprietary Underlying this consensus is the fact that like agency this is not a genuine example of leapfrogging. A remote recipient of another s money is as direct a recipient from that other as the first recipient. Thus if I find your wallet it makes no difference whether I am the first recipient or the second or the twenty-second. Suppose a pickpocket took it and in alarm threw it down and then I found it. My position in that case would be the same as in the case in which your wallet fell from your pocket into the road without your noticing its loss. The mechanism does not matter a receipt of your money is a receipt directly from you. Similarly if I use your bicycle for a month it does not matter whether you were or were not in possession immediately before me. My user is taken from you because the bicycle is yours. The model from which their Lordships worked in Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale cannot be used to support the proposition that true leapfrogging is permissible. The property argument looks as though it supports leapfrogging the first direct recipient but it actually only establishes what might be called sequential directness. These conclusions can be confirmed from German law where benefits acquired by the use or consumption of property belonging to another provide the central case for the Eingriffskondiktion the claim in respect of enrichment obtained by encroachment on the rights of another. This claim is likewise indifferent to the number of hands between claimant and defendant. In one case cattle were stolen from their owner. They were later sold to the defendant. No exception to nemo dat operated. The cattle remained the property of the claimant .