{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02022058823529412, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.117977528089888, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A European View on Enrichment by Performance

In this contribution the European legal systems on enrichment by performance are compared. The basis for this comparison is Johnston and Zimmerman (eds.), Unjustified Enrichment, Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. Several issues of enrichment by performance are discussed. First the question when an enrichment by performance occurs is considered. Two main cases can be discerned: the intended discharge of an obligation which does not exist and void contracts or rescission. Subsequently the requirement of mistake is discussed. In most cases this requirement seems not to be of great importance, except in the case of the discharge of another's debt. When an enrichment by performance has occurred, the defendant sometimes has a defence which can entail that only the enrichment surviving has to be compensated for. The valuation of the enrichment is taken into account also. Resolving multi-party relationships is difficult. This is especially true in enrichment cases, but a starting point for resolving these relationships is sought.