Note that (1)-(5) are all cause events (see above). The law responds to each of them by the obligation to pay compensation. Restitution for injustice is the subject of when exactly the law will respond by imposing a restitution obligation. The restitution is surprisingly simple. If a person has benefited at another person`s expense, they are required to repay that person in full. If restitution is granted, it is because the court is required to prevent the defendant`s unjust enrichment. That is, that is, the law does not want anyone to be rewarded with dishonesty. Even in its simplicity, restitution, when loaned, can be quite flexible and extremely powerful. In criminal or civil cases, a person may be awarded compensation for bodily harm or financial losses if he can prove to the court that the damage is directly attributable to the defendant`s actions. As has already been said, restitution is a very common remedy in the event of an infringement. It can also be awarded in civil law cases such as attack and battery, negligence, medical malpractice or assault. If Miller`s behavior led to Maggie`s assault and Maggie had to pay out of pocket, Maggie may be entitled to a refund. This type of damage restores the advantage granted to the non-injurious party.
To simplify, the plaintiff receives the value of what was lent to the defendant under a contract. There are two general restrictions on recovery, which consist of the need for a complete infringement, and the damage is limited to the price of the contract if the replacement damage is greater than that. Let`s take a simple example. The applicant enters into a transaction agreement with the defendant. Their dispute a born out of a service interruption insurance policy. Both parties assumed that the contract was written on a specific basis. In fact, it was written on a completely different basis, and if the parties had known, the amount of the comparison would have been about 33% higher. The applicant cannot recover the difference in value caused by the error. It erred in concluding the settlement agreement, but this error is not the direct cause of the abandonment of its right to a lesser amount; it was the existence and terms of the transaction agreement that led the applicant to do so.
The plaintiff must therefore set aside the transaction contract before he can assert a right to restitution. This will be much more difficult for them, because the examination that establishes a contract for an error, with the exception of baptism, is significantly and radically different (and much higher) than the restitution test.  Orthodox opinion suggests that there is only one principle on which the law of restitution depends, namely the principle of unjust enrichment.   The idea that restitution, like other legal reactions, can be triggered by one of the various cause events is becoming more and more widespread. These are events in the real world that trigger a legal response. There is no doubt that unjust enrichment and injustice can trigger an obligation of restitution. Some commentators suggest that there is a third basis for restitution, namely the justification of the property rights in which the defendant interfered.  It is questionable whether other types of ballot boxes can also trigger a restitution obligation. If the property in question cannot be identified in a particular way, the return is a remedy.
This is the case, for example, when the applicant „requests a judgment that imposes personal liability for the payment of a sum of money.“  Unfair enrichment and quantum menuit are sometimes identified as types of remedies.  As noted above, the most common basis is restitution for unfair enrichment.