Abstract

This article offers an understanding of the normative basis of unjust enrichment. It begins by considering whether the right at stake in cases of unjust enrichment fits within a Kantian conception of right that treats free agency as the sole aspect of the person commanding respect. It argues that it does not because, in cases of unjust enrichment, recovery does not depend on finding a violation of the plaintiff's bare freedom to choose. The article then argues that unjust enrichment vindicates the plaintiff's right of self-determination—the realization of the capacity to live from self-chosen ends—when the laws of property and contract threaten to undermine it. This resolves the puzzles of unjust enrichment law that remain mysterious on other accounts, such as how the plaintiff can have a right to recovery even though property has been effectively transferred to the defendant, why the plaintiff may recover even though the defendant has been purely passive and has committed no wrong, and why unjust enrichment fails to exhibit the structure of corrective justice