There are two principal accounts of the normative foundations of unjust enrichment. The first holds that the plaintiff's right to restitution for unjust enrichment is a claim in corrective justice. The second holds that the plaintiff's right vindicates a set of values to which our legal system is committed. This chapter unpacks what is at issue in the debate between these two accounts, and the chapter sets that debate in two contexts. The first is the main justificatory puzzle posed by the claim in unjust enrichment, which puzzle is brought into relief by asking whether the right to restitution for unjust enrichment is primary or secondary. The second context is a set of linked foundational issues in political philosophy and private law theory, issues that it is argued are engaged by the question: What justifies liability in unjust enrichment?
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.