The sheriff found that his failure to pursue a legal remedy for use by roommates (see 28 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 prevented him from asserting a right to unjust enrichment. Ms. Pert submitted that, in the particular circumstances of her case, there is no such rule. The judgment therefore did not clarify matters, so that, in many cases, the availability of unjust enrichment as a remedy remains uncertain and the parties have no recourse. The interpretation of the principles of Roman law on unjust enrichment by the French jurist Jean Domat and the German jurist Friedrich Carl von Savigny formed the respective origins of the modern French and German law on unjust enrichment. [6] Domat developed the French principles of unjust enrichment on the basis of the actio de in rem verso, as well as a modified version of the Roman term causa (cause) that makes treaties capable of acting even if they are not normally recognized by Roman law. [2] On the other hand, the concept of unjust enrichment is much broader in Germany and Greece and is more often used to resolve restitution issues and to restore failed acts. [7] Appropriate follow-up is a particularly appropriate remediation tool. While the Inner House touched on the issue of alternative remedies in pt, they refused to confirm whether there is a general rule that unjust enrichment is available only if there are no other remedies in the present circumstances. The Home Recognized that the availability of legal recourse would generally exclude a right to unjust enrichment, but not in this case. In this regard, the statutory provision was designed so that the court could, in addition to any other existing remedy, issue a discretion to pay. Therefore, the non-application of this particular legal right does not prohibit the use of unjust enrichment. In any event, it did so too late, regardless of the correct basis of its claims.

The appeal had been filed more than five years after the parties separated. Any allegation she could have made against Mr. McCaffrey as a result of a breach of contract or unjust enrichment had therefore been extinguished by order. The complaint was in Pert/McCaffrey [2020] CSIH 5. Ms. Pert had sued her ex-partner McCaffrey after the sale of her condominium. She submitted that he was not entitled to retain a half share of the sale price (which was paid to him by Ms. Pert`s agent in the receivership), as the initial purchase was financed by the sale of a property owned by him.