Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 04.06.1981 110/81 AI generated

Claim for unjust enrichment dismissed due to ten-year statute of limitations period from the transaction date.

Case Number Vaasan HO 04.06.1981 110/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment, ruling that the ten-year limitation period under the Statute of Limitations Act had expired. The plaintiff sought restitution after purchasing shares in a condominium building based on a mutual but erroneous belief that the company owned the land beneath the structure. The court held that the claim was time-barred because the limitation period began running from the date of the transaction, regardless of the subsequent discovery of the error.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Perusteettoman edun palautuslain 1 §; Vanhentumisasetuksen 1 §. The claim for unjust enrichment is barred by the ten-year limitation period if the cause of action arises from a transaction, regardless of when the error is discovered.

Keywords

AI generated
unjust enrichment claim statute of limitations ten year period transaction date error in belief condominium shares land ownership

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Perusteettoman edun palautuslain 1 §
Vanhentumisasetuksen 1 §
Perusteettoman edun palautusvaatimukseen sovellettiin vanhentumisasetuksen 1 §:n kymmenen vuoden määräaikaa, joka oli luettava kaupanteosta (ostaja A oli ostanut asunto-osakeyhtiön rakennuksessa olevan huoneiston hallintaan oikeuttavat osakkeet.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1966-II-130
AI generated
ECLI:FI:KKO:2023:41
Supreme Court dismisses eviction claim where usage right expired after 100 years of free use.
admin_2016_helsinki__1074
Court denies tax deduction for apartment renovation costs as the unit was not used for family residence.
kko-precedent_1993_141
Supreme Court allows land compensation for a pre-existing forest road when no agreement excluded payment.
appeal_1986_helsinki__166
Tenant lease increase claim dismissed where prior shareholder sale did not grant superior rights.
kko-precedent_2000_121
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; fraud by seller invalidates land sale despite buyer's later consent to building permit.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Perusteettoman edun palautusvaatimukseen sovellettiin vanhentumisasetuksen 1 §:n kymmenen vuoden määräaikaa, joka oli luettava kaupanteosta (ostaja A oli ostanut asunto-osakeyhtiön rakennuksessa olevan huoneiston hallintaan oikeuttavat osakkeet. A ja myyjä B olivat kaupasta päätettäessä siinä erheellisessä käsityksessä, että asunto-osakeyhtiö omisti myös sen tilan, jolla rakennus sijaitsi).

Vrt. KKO:1966-II-130

Ks. Hakulinen: Perusteettoman edun palautus, s. 346

Routamo: Kaupanvastuu ja oikeudellinen virhe irtaimen

kaupassa, s. 229 ss.

Lainvoimainen