mankind0608的部落格

1. Change of position
Where a defendant has been enriched, he may still be able to plead the defence of change of position. The effect of the defence is to reduce the quantum of enrichment recoverable by the claimant from the amount originally received to the amount still retained. Clearly, it is crucial to identify what conduct on the part of the defendant counts as a relevant change of position. For example, it is plain that if the defendant has paid his electricity bill out of the enrichment received, he has not relevantly changed his position, since he would have had to pay the bill anyway. What is needed therefore is to establish a causal connection between the enriching event and losses sustained by the defendant, such as, for example, sums that he would not otherwise have expended and which he cannot now recover.

背景說明：
這是關於不當得利的比較法研究。
以上這個段落是講到原告要求被告返還不當得利時，
被告可能主張的抗辯。例如1.地位(狀態)的變更。

最後一句是疑問處
大意是被告需要去建立因果關係
亦即建立不當得利事件與損失之間的因果關係

問題在於：losses sustained by the defendant
是指      一、 ”由被告所舉證的支出”
或是指 二 、 ”被告所蒙受的損失”

sustain有好幾個意思: 支撐 維持等等
似乎又分別衍生出 忍受 蒙受 以及 舉證 的意思

我是選擇一的翻譯 tutor也是贊成此說

老師則是二的翻譯 而且企圖說服我

我覺得 by是被動用法 被蒙受的損失 是很奇怪的講法

而且

他說服我的理由之一是 舉證說的話 會跟establish(因果關係的確立)重複

但 我認為英文原文用不同字眼 當無重複之問題

更何況就訴訟來講

要建立得利與損害間之因果關係

其前提是 被告要先指名自己哪裡有所損害

於是 我就到處問人....

中國人的博士學姊認為要直接問英美人士

我問了台灣的法學英文老師 但沒有回應

後來在知識加倒是出現了回應

討論的初步結論

似乎二的翻譯才是英美的慣用法

小結 sustained by 有點像happend to

你不能直接用被動去翻譯它

###############################################

後續發展:

知識加的回應裡貼了另一段文章

Beyond Factual Causation
The establishment of a causal link, as a matter of fact, betwen enrichment and erasure is, then, a necessary condition for the establishment of the enrichment-related defence of change of position; but we must consider whether it is a sufficient condition. Factual causation is often employed in the law; but it is rarely employed alone. For example, in the law of negligence it is necessary to establish that an act by the defendant, constituting breach of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, was the factual cause of the loss which the defendant sustained and in respect of which he claims compensation. However, it must further be shown that the loss was not 'too remote', or that the breach of duty was the legal as well as the factual cause of the loss.

那反而引起我新的疑惑

先試譯如下

在事實上因果關係之外(之上)

  得利與損害之間(所具有)事實上的因果關係之建立，乃關於不當得利的狀態變更抗辯之必要條件；但須注意其是否為充要條件。事實上的因果關係在法律上常被運用；但很少被單獨運用。例如，在過失(侵權行為)法中，須建立被告之行為構成對原告注意義務之違反；此為被告所引起損害之事實上原因，原告據而請求損害賠償。然而，須進一步證明損害並非(與行為之間)太過遙遠；否則須證明(侵權行為之)義務違反(係來自)法律上原因，如同(來自)事實上原因之損害。