| dc.contributor | 國立政治大學法律學系 | en_US |
| dc.contributor | 行政院國家科學委員會 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 楊芳賢 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2008 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 26-Nov-2012 09:35:35 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 26-Nov-2012 09:35:35 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 26-Nov-2012 09:35:35 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/55833 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 本研究計畫之題目為英國及美國不當得利判決與我國最高法院相關判決之比較研究。本項計畫之聲請主要是有感於我國民法之研究長久偏重於引介大陸法系國家之制度或學說或實務見解，而極少參考或引入英美法系之相關見解。例如本計畫之研究課題不當得利，最為明顯，即我國民法第一七九條至第一八三條有關不當得利之規定，主要參考大陸法系尤其德國民法第八一二條至第八二二條規定，故目前學說有關不當得利法之說明，亦大都參考德國或其他大陸法系國家學說與實務見解，而少有參考英國或美國判例法者。但是英美法近年來在不當得利法方面極為蓬勃發展，不僅有專門網站(http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/)提供各種豐富之資訊，亦發行專門期刊(即Restitution Law Review)。實際上，自聲請人已閱讀之有限資料，聲請人已確信英美法不當得利判決之理由或分析對我國法之理解具有高度價值，值得參考。其次，我國有關不當得利法之研究，目前尚偏重抽像概念或原則或學說與體系之論述，較少全部針對最高法院(或其他各級法院)相關判決進行分析評論者。相對的，英美法判決或學說傳統上均著重判決個案事實與理由之比較、分析與說理，此一方法論上之特色及其具體成果，對我國最高法院不當得利判決之理解，亦具有值得參考之處。本項研究計畫預計三年完成。第一年，英國法部分，偏重自Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd, [1992] 4 All ER 512 (HL)一案以來之發展與現況(理由參見表C012研究計畫內容之說明)。第二年，以美國不當得利判決之現況為重點。第三年，則係以英國及美國不當得利判決與我國最高法院相關判決之比較研究為核心。 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | I Background European continental legal systems play a great influence on the Study of the Civil Code in Taiwan, unjust enrichment is only one of the examples. But the anglo-american common law has accumulated numberous cases and therefore deserve more intensive study. I am convinced that we can benefit from the study on the law of unjust enrichment in England and American. The project I apply is 『Case law of unjust enrichment in England and American and it』s comparision with the judgements of the supreme court in Taiwan』 for the years from 2007 to 2010. II Approach If this project should be approved, it』s execution will be divided into three parts. In the first year, I will first focus on the development of the case law of England from the Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd, [1992] 4 All ER 512 (HL). I will try to brief facts and 『ratio decidendi』 of related leading cases. In the second year, I will try to summarize the results of the case law of unjust enrichment in American. Since the American law institute is making the Restatement of the law Third, Restitution and unjust enrichment I hope I have time to make a short note about it. In the third year, I would like to analyse judgements made by the supreme court whick related to the law of unjust enrichment and make a comparison with the results reached in the first and second year. III expected results I hope this study can give us an insight into the way how the common law develop the law of unjust enrichment and can also provide us some helpful reasons and arguments when we confront legal problems of unjust enrichment. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 基礎研究 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 學術補助 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究期間:9708~ 9807 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究經費:455仟元 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 不當得利;英國不當得利判決;美國不當得利判決;最高法院不當得利判決 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | unjust enrichment;law of restitution;case law;law of England;law of American;judgements of the supreme court (in Taiwan). | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 英國及美國不當得利判決與我國最高法院相關判決之比較研究 (II) | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Study on the Case Law of Unjust Enrichment in England and American and It`s Comparison with the Judgements of Supreme Court in Taiwan | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | report | en |
