Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Breslau.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Bonn.

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1991. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 238-251).

The purpose of this thesis is to compare the S.A. law of enrichment with the German BGB, to answer the question whether both systems are so similar that in both of them a general enrichment action could exist. Before this question can be answered in the affirmative, it has to be investigated whether, first of all, a basic structural similarity of these two Romanistic legal systeas exist and (secondly), whether the BGB recognizes a general enrichment action. The coaparison would be fairly easy if one could say that at least the basic principles of each system were of a firmly developed and undisputed nature. But this is far from true! Voluminous works have been written not only concerning the law of enrichment in general, but even concerning each specific element of enrichment liability. I do not intend to add another compendium to this huge number. Nor do I intend to discuss the actio negotiorum gestorum. This thesis is aimed at giving a short outline of both systems of unjustified enrichment, and elaborating basic principles of enrichment liability; thereafter the difference between the two systems will be highlighted by examples and, finally, special attention will be paid to the problem of a general enrichment action.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1997. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [343]-354).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Berlin.

Thesis (LLM) - University of Queensland, / Includes bibliography.

Thesis (doctoral)--Philipps-Universitẗ zu Marburg.

LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract