What is &quot;unjust enrichment?&quot; What is unjust enrichment under the law? It's understandable if associated with liability for wrongdoing. Apparently, this is not a necessary condition. How does it operate independently of liability for wrongdoing?
Unjust enrichment is an equitable theory of recovery that provides a fallback, for lack of better words, avenue of recovery for situations where no contract actually exists between two parties, but one party has received a benefit. The classic example is: Jane hires Dan to mow her lawn and tells him where her house is. Dan mistakenly mows Bob's lawn next door. Dan has no contract to mow Bob's lawn, but Bob has been unjustly enriched based on Dan having mowed his lawn. In this case Dan would have an equitable claim of unjust enrichment against Bob for the value of his yard services mistakenly provided Bob. In sum, any time someone receives the benefit from someone else's efforts, where the one providing the benefit mistakenly provides those services in good-faith, the one receiving the benefit has been unjustly enriched.
Bankruptcy does not obliterate legal financial obligations (taxes that you owe, fines, etc.). Fines either do or do not (any more) accrue interest, depending on jurisdiction. Fines for criminal conviction can accrue interest. By law, no fine can be unreasonable, but there is no simple determination of what is reasonable versus unreasonable. The matter reduces to whether the penalty would be grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. Federal law suggests a upper-ballpark of $250,000 for an individual felony or $5,000 for an infraction, but there is no actual upper limit, for example a crime resulting in pecuniary gain may receive a fine of twice that gain, so fines can be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The government can seize property including wages in order to satisfy a legal financial obligation. However, you can not be imprisoned because of an unpaid fine, although you can be imprisoned for willfully not paying a fine when ordered to do so (there is no legal clarity as to what constitutes "willful" non-payment). As noted in this article, seemingly small fines can balloon to large sums (they cite an example of a 4-fold increase in initial fine owing to interest and similar increases.
It is the use of a "menace" which creates the crime, not the nature or validity of the demand. That's not correct. You've inadvertently missed the other element of the offence: that it's an "unwarranted demand". A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief— (a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/21 For example, I may have reasonable grounds under the Consumer Rights Act to demand a refund for a faulty good. It might be sensible to moderate one's language, e.g. "If I do not receive a satisfactory response from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, I intend to issue proceedings against you in the county court without further notice. This may increase your liability for costs." vs. "If I do not receive the money from you within 30 days of the date of this letter I'll take you to the f***ing cleaners, sunshine." But the language doesn't make the demand unwarranted.
A government always has standing to enforce violations of its own laws in its own jurisdiction. The harm to its legally protected interest is its interest in enforcing its own laws. While the forum here is a civil action, the basic concept is the same one that authorizes a government to enforce its own criminal laws. Also, a government agency may seek fines and not merely compensatory damages or liquidated damages in lieu of compensatory damages, unlike private litigants in civil actions. A civil government enforcement action is civil in the sense that only monetary damages and injunctive relief are sought, rather than incarceration, and that the court rules for civil actions apply (and as a result, the constitutional rights of criminal defendants are not invoked). But from a standing/political theory/legal theory perspective, this is almost like a quasi-criminal action in which restitution for the victims is also sought. Many labor, consumer protection, health, safety and environmental laws authorize enforcement by a state agency through the attorney general, or in the alternative, by private litigants acting as a &quot;private attorney general.&quot; In the area of employment discrimination, the usual situation is that you must first seek relief by filing a complaint with the appropriate agency, and then have a private cause of action to enforce your rights associated with the complaint only if and when the agency decides not to pursue the case with its own resources. The harassment involved here is being conceptualized as a form of employment discrimination that is subject to that kind of regime. This arrangement is legislatively favored because it provides a means by which people who can't afford attorneys can obtain relief.
In principle, police are liable for the safety of anyone they detain. If an officer creates a hazardous condition, as was described in this scenario, he or his agency (which effectively means the taxpayers who fund his agency) can be held liable for damages resulting from that action. (Whether it is the officer or instead the taxpayers who get stuck with the bill is a separate question of "qualified immunity.") This idea has been formalized under two theories: The "special relationship doctrine" would apply in this case because the officer was detaining the driver. Otherwise, the liability could be argued under the more broad "state-created danger doctrine."
Yes, of course slavery is illegal. "Involuntary servitude" imposed upon someone through due process of law is not slavery. This is analogous to a death sentence for a capital crime, which, because it is imposed by due process of law, is not murder. Similarly, the judicial imposition of a fine, or the forfeiture of other property, is not theft. Now, rhetorically, one can speak of the conditions of modern imprisonment as "state-sanctioned slavery," just as death-penalty opponents speak of "state-sanctioned murder" and recipients of parking tickets can speak of "state-sanctioned theft." But there's a big difference between rhetoric and the law.
Possibly. I am analyzing this issue under generally applicable, majority, common law rules of law (applicable in the U.S. (except Puerto Rico and Louisiana) and in most countries that are or were part of the British Commonwealth), when not modified by statute or regulation. If there is a contract regarding what is to be done, the measure of damages is &quot;the benefit of the bargain&quot;. And if the benefit of the bargain included an express or implied warranty that the transaction would be conducted in a manner that obtained a tax benefit and that tax benefit was not obtained, the difference between the economic value of the agreed result and the actual result would be recoverable as monetary damages (which would then raise the meta issue of the tax treatment of the recovery which is beyond the scope of this answer). Two other kinds of claims in addition to a straight breach of contract claim are also plausible. One is a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing arising in every contract, which requires that someone who has discretion in the way that they perform a contract to do so in a manner that reflects the intent of the parties regarding the objectives and purposes of the contract when carrying it out. By intentionally disregarding the intent of the parties, in how the transaction would be carried out, damages in the form of additional taxes could be incurred. Another is a claim for breach of fiduciary duty in a case where the person carrying out the transaction and the person for whom the transaction was carried out are in a fiduciary relationship, such as a customer and a broker with discretionary authority, or an agent and principal, or a lawyer and client. Usually, when someone is entrusted with discretionary management of someone else's money or property, a fiduciary relationship arises by operation of law. The taxes unnecessarily and intentionally incurred in this case could also be damages for a breach of fiduciary duty. On the other hand, in contracts and transactions of this character, there would frequently be an express contractual waiver of any right to recover for taxes incurred, allegedly wrongfully, in the transaction. This waiver would be effective against a claim for breach of contract or a claim alleging that a fiduciary negligently violated a duty of care owed to the person upon whose behalf the transaction was conducted. But, waivers of rights are generally ineffective and void as contrary to public policy, when the wrongdoing purportedly waived is intentional or conducted in bad faith in a manner that is knowingly contrary to the mutual intent of the parties to a transaction. So, while a waiver would be effective if someone accidentally incurs additional taxes for someone else, it generally wouldn't be effective if someone screwed up the tax outcome intentionally as the question proposes in its example.
It's hard to give a definitive answer, since the specific details matter. You should read this question and answer, What is a derivate work? for more information. If you're really considering investing the time and energy to create such a product, you might consider getting advice from an actual attorney, and not from strangers on the Internet.