Court holds that the one-year letter holder action period must expire before the four-year unjust enrichment prescription period begins.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's request for restitution based on unjust enrichment, ruling that the specific one-year limitation period for acting against a letter holder must be exhausted first. The plaintiff argued for the application of the general four-year prescription period under the Civil Code, but the court found the specific provision of the Law on Letters and Usury (L.U.L.L.) took precedence. Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred because the initial statutory period had not yet concluded.