UE PQ Mistake UE PQ 错误
Wong, an elderly man, is beginning to suffer from some confusion. He sees a photograph of his neighbour Cathy's daughter, Chloe, celebrating her graduation from law school. Wong mistakenly comes to believe that Chloe is his own estranged granddaughter, Grace, whom he has not seen in many years.
黄先生是一位年长者，开始出现一些认知混乱。他看到邻居凯茜的女儿克洛伊庆祝法学院毕业的照片。黄先生错误地认为克洛伊是他多年未见的疏远孙女格蕾丝。
Driven by this mistaken belief, Wong decides to act.
基于这一错误的信念，黄先生决定采取行动。
First, he remembers a promise he made to his late wife to pay for Grace's final year of university tuition. Believing he has a binding family obligation to fulfill this promise, he transfers HK$150,000 to Cathy's bank account with the note "For Grace's Final Year Fees."
首先，他想起了对已故妻子的承诺，要支付格蕾丝大学最后一年的学费。相信自己有履行这一家庭义务的责任，他将 15 万港币转入凯茜的银行账户，并附言“用于格蕾丝最后一年的学费”。
A week later, feeling a wave of generosity and pride for his "granddaughter," Wong decides to buy her a graduation present. He transfers an additional HK$300,000 to Cathy's account with the note "A Graduation Gift for my dear Grace."
一周后，怀着对他的“孙女”满满的慷慨和自豪感，黄决定给她买一份毕业礼物。他向凯茜的账户额外转账 30 万港元，并附言“献给我亲爱的格蕾丝的毕业礼物”。
Cathy, unaware of Wong's confusion, is surprised but grateful. She passes the money to Chloe. Later, Wong's son visits and clarifies the mistake. Wong now wants to recover both payments from Cathy.
凯茜并不知晓黄的误会，感到惊讶但心存感激。她将这笔钱转给了克洛伊。后来，黄的儿子来访并澄清了这个错误。黄现在想要从凯茜那里追回这两笔款项。
Question: Advise Wong on his claims in unjust enrichment to recover the HK150,000paymentandtheHK300,000 gift from Cathy. Your answer should explain the unjust factor and apply the relevant legal tests for each transaction.
问题：请就黄基于不当得利提出的索赔，针对追回 15 万港元的付款和 30 万港元的礼物向凯茜提出建议。你的答案应解释不当得利的要素，并针对每笔交易适用相关的法律检验标准。
答案：
Wong paid the money under the mistaken belief that Chloe is his granddaughter, Grace. This belief was based on the confusion he was suffering. The note with both transactions mentioned “for Grace” and Wong’s son confirmed Wong’s belief was erroneous.
黄是在错误地认为克洛伊是他的孙女格蕾丝的情况下支付了款项。这一信念基于他所遭受的混淆。两笔交易的附言均提及“给格蕾丝”，且黄的儿子确认了黄的信念是错误的。
The first payment OF 150000 HKD is a mistaken payment based on a false obligation to pay. Wong promised to his late wife that he will pay for Grace’s final year of university tuition. He believed that he owed an obligation for the tuition to Grace, and he did transfer the tuition for ‘Grace’, which is actually Chole, to fulfill his promise. However, his deemed obligation is toward Grece not Chloe. So when Wong transfers his money to Cathy, he is doing it with a false obligation to pay.
第一笔 15 万港币的付款是基于错误的支付义务而产生的错误付款。黄先生曾向已故妻子承诺，他将支付 Grace 最后一年的大学学费。他认为自己对 Grace 负有支付学费的义务，因此他确实将学费转给了“Grace”，实际上是 Chole，以履行他的承诺。然而，他的义务对象应是 Grace 而非 Chole。因此，当黄先生将钱转给 Cathy 时，他是在基于错误的支付义务进行转账。
The second payment of 300000 HKD is a mistaken gift based on a false motivation for the gift. Again, Wong’s intention is to give a gift to Grace. Chole is not Grace. So when Wong transfers his money to Cathy, he is doing it with a false motivation for the gift.
第二笔 30 万港币的付款是基于错误的赠与动机而产生的错误赠与。同样，黄先生的意图是赠与 Grace。Chole 并非 Grace。因此，当黄先生将钱转给 Cathy 时，他是在基于错误的赠与动机进行转账。
The unjust factor for 150000 is mistaken payment, and the unjust factor for 300000 is mistaken gift.
15 万港币的不当因素是错误付款，30 万港币的不当因素是错误赠与。
注意：两阶段的分析在所有“错误赠与”案件中都是必要的，但在以下两种情况中其重要性尤为明显
“Sufficient Gravity”标准的具体理解
UE PQ Duress UE PQ 胁迫
Prime Construction Ltd (PCL) is the main contractor for a major new office tower project in Hong Kong. They have a contract with a developer that includes a significant daily penalty clause for any delays beyond the August 1st completion date.
Prime Construction Ltd（PCL）是香港一座大型新办公楼项目的总承包商。其与开发商签订的合同中包含一项重大每日罚款条款，针对任何超过 8 月 1 日完工日期的延误。
PCL sub-contracts with Speedy Steelworks (Speedy) to manufacture and deliver custom-made steel beams for the project. The contract price is HK$2 million, with a strict delivery deadline of June 1st. These beams are unique to the project, and finding an alternative supplier would take months.
PCL 与 Speedy Steelworks（Speedy）签订分包合同，负责为该项目制造和交付定制钢梁。合同价格为 200 万港元，交货截止日期为 6 月 1 日。这些钢梁是项目专用，寻找替代供应商需要数月时间。
On May 25th, just one week before the deadline, Speedy's manager called PCL. He states that due to a "sudden and unforeseen rise in global steel prices," Speedy will not deliver the beams unless PCL agrees to pay an additional HK$500,000 immediately. PCL knows it is impossible to find another supplier in time and that failing to get the beams will trigger the multi-million dollar penalty clause with the developer.
5 月 25 日，即截止日期前一周，Speedy 的经理致电 PCL，称由于“全球钢材价格的突然且不可预见的上涨”，除非 PCL 立即同意支付额外 50 万港元，否则 Speedy 将不交付钢梁。PCL 知道无法及时找到其他供应商，且未能获得钢梁将触发与开发商签订的数百万港元罚款条款。
Under verbal protest, PCL's director transfers the extra HK500,000 to Speedy.The beams are delivered on time. Once the main project is complete, PCL sues Speedy to recover the HK500,000 payment.
在口头抗议下，PCL 的董事向 Speedy 转账了额外的 50 万港元。钢梁按时交付。主项目完成后，PCL 起诉 Speedy，要求追回该 50 万港元付款。
Question: Advise Prime Construction Ltd on whether it can recover the additional HK$500,000 payment from Speedy Steelworks on the grounds of economic duress.
问题：请就 Prime Construction Ltd 是否可以基于经济胁迫的理由，从 Speedy Steelworks 追回额外的 50 万港元付款提供建议。
答案：
Duress is an unjust factor which is the illegitimate threat or pressure over the P which had a causal effect on P’s decision to transfer the benefit (Barton v Armstrong). In this case, the duress is a kind of economic duress since Speedy was threatening PCL for the delivery of the goods under their contract with additional fees.
胁迫是一种不正当因素，指对原告施加的非法威胁或压力，该压力对原告决定转移利益具有因果影响（Barton 诉 Armstrong 案）。在本案中，胁迫属于经济胁迫，因为 Speedy 威胁 PCL 必须支付额外费用才能按合同交付货物。
For economic duress, the core task is to distinguish "normal commercial pressure" from "illegitimate pressure". The court will consider factors such as threats of breach of contract, good/bad faith, and the absence of a realistic alternative (DSND Subsea). For the first factor, if the Speedy didn’t send the steel on time, it would breach the contract it signed with PCL for it is almost certain that a contract of a supply of materials would include a clause to clearly state the time limit. For the second factor, Speedy is definitely not in a good faith by giving a reason only based on price just one week before the deadline. For the last factor, as PCL mentioned that it knows it is impossible to find another supplier in time, it has no alternative ways.
对于经济胁迫，核心任务是区分“正常商业压力”和“非法压力”。法院将考虑诸如违约威胁、善意/恶意以及缺乏现实替代方案（DSND Subsea 案）等因素。关于第一个因素，如果 Speedy 未能按时发送钢材，将构成其与 PCL 签订合同的违约，因为供应材料合同几乎肯定会包含明确规定时间限制的条款。关于第二个因素，Speedy 显然不具备善意，仅在截止日期前一周以价格为由提出理由。关于最后一个因素，正如 PCL 所述，其知道不可能及时找到其他供应商，因此没有替代方案。
Moreover, as PCL made the transaction under verbal protest, the duress from speedy is undoubtedly altered the decision of PCL. It is safe to establish a causative link that but for Speedy’s duree, PCL would not pay the additional fee.
此外，由于 PCL 是在口头抗议的情况下进行交易，Speedy 的胁迫无疑改变了 PCL 的决定。可以合理认定因果关系，即如果没有 Speedy 的胁迫，PCL 不会支付额外费用。
Since all three factors are satisfied and a causation link is established, it is likely that PCL can have a claim for restitution of the 500,000 HKD it paid to Speed under duress.
鉴于上述三个因素均已满足且因果关系已建立，PCL 很可能能够就其在胁迫下支付给 Speedy 的 50 万港元提出返还请求。
在分析“不法压力”时，你可以更明确地指出，Speedy的威胁是进行一项非法行为 (unlawful act)，即违约。这本身就构成了推定上的不法压力 (prima facie illegitimate pressure)
在分析“无现实替代选择”时，你可以补充一点：诉诸法律（如申请禁制令）在当时的情况下并不是一个现实可行 (practical) 的替代方案，因为它无法解决PCL迫在眉睫的商业需求（即按时拿到钢材以避免巨额罚款）
人身胁迫和财产胁迫的经典例子
经济胁迫中的善意/恶意 (Good/Bad Faith) 应该怎么判断？
UE PQ UI
Mrs. Chan is an 85-year-old widow who is in frail health. Since her husband's death last year, her only regular visitor has been Mr. Lee, her financial advisor for over 20 years, whom she trusts completely with all her affairs.
陈女士是一位 85 岁的寡妇，身体虚弱。自从去年丈夫去世后，她唯一的常客就是李先生，她信任了他二十多年，作为她的财务顾问，完全托付给他处理所有事务。
Mr. Lee is facing personal financial ruin due to a bad investment and urgently needs HK$2 million to avoid bankruptcy. For an entire week, Mr. Lee visits Mrs. Chan every day. He appears highly distressed and tells her repeatedly that if he goes bankrupt, he will be forced to leave Hong Kong and will no longer be able to visit her. Mrs. Chan, who is deeply lonely and relies on Mr. Lee's company, becomes distraught at the thought of losing her only friend.
李先生因一笔失败的投资面临个人财务破产，急需 200 万港元以避免破产。整整一周，李先生每天都去看望陈女士。他显得非常焦虑，不断告诉她，如果他破产，将被迫离开香港，无法再来看望她。陈女士深感孤独，依赖李先生的陪伴，想到失去唯一的朋友，心情十分痛苦。
At the end of the week, she agrees to give Mr. Lee HK$2 million, which represents over 80% of her entire life savings. The transfer is documented as a "gift".
一周结束时，她同意给李先生 200 万港元，这占据了她全部积蓄的 80%以上。该转账被记录为“赠与”。
Mrs. Chan's son, who lives in Australia, finds out about the transaction during a phone call and is horrified. He seeks legal advice on his mother's behalf.
陈女士的儿子住在澳大利亚，在一次电话中得知此事，感到震惊。他代表母亲寻求法律咨询。
Question: Advise Mrs. Chan's son on whether the HK$2,000,000 gift to Mr. Lee can be set aside on the grounds of undue influence. Your answer should consider both possible methods of proving undue influence.
问题：请就陈太太之子是否可以以不当影响为由撤销向李先生赠送的 200 万港元礼物提供建议。您的答案应考虑证明不当影响的两种可能方法。
答案：
One possible unjust factor in the case is based on the relationship between Mrs Chan and Mr Lee as Mrs Chan trusts Mr Lee completely with all her affairs over the past 20 years. This is undoubtedly a relationship of trust and confidence. The motivation behind Mrs Chan’s gift was the fact that Mr. Lee visited Mrs. Chan and told her that she would lose her only friend, Mr Lee himself, if she didn’t give him 2 million HKD. This action from Mr Lee constitutes an actual undue influence since it was clearly improper pressure that was directly exerted. So Mrs Chan;s son’s claim is likely to be supported with an unjust factor: undue influence.
本案中可能存在的不公因素基于陈太太与李先生之间的关系，陈太太在过去 20 年里对李先生完全信任，将所有事务托付给他。这无疑是一种信任与信赖关系。陈太太赠与的动机是李先生曾拜访陈太太，并告诉她如果不赠送 200 万港元给他，她将失去唯一的朋友——李先生本人。李先生的这一行为构成了实际不当影响，因为这是明显的不当压力，且是直接施加的。因此，陈太太之子的主张很可能因不公因素——不当影响而获得支持。
Alternatively, a claim can be established based on Presumed Undue Influence. This requires proving two elements (Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)):
或者，可以基于推定不当影响提出主张。这需要证明两个要素（Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)）：
A relationship of trust and confidence: This is clearly established on the facts. Mr. Lee was Mrs. Chan's financial advisor for over 20 years, and she "trusts him completely with all her affairs." This constitutes a Class 2B relationship of influence proven on the facts.
信任与信心关系：根据事实，这一点已明确确立。李先生是陈女士的理财顾问超过 20 年，且她“完全信任他处理她的所有事务”。这构成了事实证明的 2B 类影响关系。
A transaction that "calls for explanation": This element is also clearly satisfied. A gift of HK$2,000,000, which represents over 80% of an elderly widow's life savings, made to her financial advisor is not a normal transaction. It is so large and improvident that it "calls for an explanation" and cannot be accounted for by ordinary motives of friendship or charity.
“需要解释”的交易：这一要素也明显满足。向理财顾问赠送 200 万港元的礼物，占一位年迈寡妇终生积蓄的 80%以上，这并非正常交易。金额之大且不当，足以“需要解释”，且无法用普通的友谊或慈善动机来说明。
Since both elements are met, a presumption of undue influence arises. The burden of proof would then shift to Mr. Lee to rebut it, for example by proving Mrs. Chan received independent legal advice. On these facts, he cannot do so. Therefore, the claim would also succeed on the basis of presumed undue influence.
既然两个要素均已满足，则产生不当影响的推定。举证责任随后转移至李先生，需反驳该推定，例如证明陈女士获得了独立法律咨询。根据这些事实，他无法做到。因此，该诉求也可基于推定不当影响而成立。
UE PQ Ignorance UE PQ 无知
Paul is on a month-long holiday in Europe. During this time, a thief breaks into his apartment in Hong Kong and steals a limited-edition watch worth HK$50,000. Paul is completely unaware of the theft.
保罗正在欧洲度过为期一个月的假期。在此期间，一名窃贼闯入他位于香港的公寓，偷走了一块价值五万港元的限量版手表。保罗对此盗窃行为完全不知情。
The thief then gives the watch as an expensive birthday gift to his new friend, David, who has no reason to suspect it was stolen and accepts it in good faith.
窃贼随后将这块手表作为昂贵的生日礼物送给了他的新朋友大卫，大卫没有理由怀疑手表是被盗的，并且善意接受了这份礼物。
When Paul returns, he discovers the theft. A week later, he sees David wearing the distinctive watch at a local café. Paul proves the watch is his and demands its return, but David, believing it was a legitimate gift, refuses.
当保罗返回时，他发现了盗窃事件。一周后，他在当地一家咖啡馆看到大卫戴着这块独特的手表。保罗证明该手表属于自己，并要求归还，但大卫认为这是合法赠与，拒绝归还。
Question: Advise Paul on whether he can bring a claim in unjust enrichment against David to recover the value of the watch, and what the specific unjust factor would be.
问题：请就保罗是否可以基于不当得利对大卫提起索赔以追回手表价值提供建议，并指出具体的不当得利因素。
答案：
Ignorance occurs when property is transferred entirely without the plaintiff's consent. In this case, Paul’s watch was transferred by the thief without his consent (the thief stole it). Therefore the watch David received from the thief was not a legitimate gift even though David had no reason to suspect it was stolen when he accepted it. It is likely that Paul is able to bring a claim in unjust enrichment based on the unjust factor of Ignorance (lack of consent).
无知发生在财产完全未经原告同意而被转移的情况下。在本案中，保罗的手表被小偷在未经他同意的情况下转移（小偷偷走了手表）。因此，尽管大卫在接受手表时没有理由怀疑其被盗，但他从小偷那里获得的手表并非合法赠与。保罗很可能能够基于无知（缺乏同意）这一不当因素提出不当得利的诉讼请求。
明确三方关系: 你可以更明确地指出，这是一个经典的三方关系 (P → X → D) 案例，即P的财产通过中间人X（小偷）转移给了最终的收款人D。并说明，即使转移不是直接的，不当得利之诉仍然可以成立
提及并行索赔: 你的笔记中提到，在这种情况下存在并行责任 (concurrent liability)。一个更完整的答案会提及，除了不当得利之诉，Paul同样可以对David提起侵权法下的侵占之诉 (tort of conversion) 或物权主张 (proprietary claim) 来要求返还手表本身
UE PQ Illegality (as a cause of action)
不当得利诉讼请求中的非法性（作为诉因）
The Hong Kong "Financial Services (Vulnerable Consumers) Ordinance" states that it is illegal for any lender to charge an effective annual interest rate of more than 40% on any loan under HK$50,000. The Ordinance's preamble clearly states its purpose is "to protect inexperienced and low-income borrowers from predatory lending practices." The Ordinance provides for a fine to be imposed on any lender who contravenes this section, but it is silent on whether the borrower has a right to recover any excess interest paid.
香港《金融服务（弱势消费者）条例》规定，任何贷款人在贷款金额低于五万港元的情况下，收取的实际年利率超过 40%属非法。该条例的序言明确指出其目的是“保护缺乏经验和低收入的借款人免受掠夺性贷款行为的侵害”。条例规定，对违反本条款的贷款人可处以罚款，但未明确借款人是否有权追回已支付的超额利息。
Laura, a recent graduate in urgent need of money for a family medical emergency, takes out a HK$30,000 loan from QuickCash Ltd, a payday loan company. The contract she signs has a complex fee structure which amounts to an effective annual interest rate of 80%. Laura, being distressed and financially inexperienced, signs the agreement.
劳拉是一名刚毕业的学生，因家庭医疗紧急情况急需资金，向发薪日贷款公司 QuickCash Ltd 借款三万港元。她签署的合同包含复杂的费用结构，实际年利率高达 80%。劳拉因情绪紧张且缺乏财务经验，签署了该协议。
Over the next six months, Laura pays a total of HK$10,000 in interest to QuickCash Ltd, an amount which significantly exceeds the statutory 40% limit. After speaking to a friend at a consumer rights NGO, she learns that the interest rate was illegal. She sues QuickCash Ltd to recover the excess interest she paid. QuickCash Ltd defends by arguing that Laura was a party to the illegal contract and the court should not assist her.
在接下来的六个月里，劳拉共向 QuickCash 有限公司支付了 10,000 港元的利息，这一金额远远超过了法定的 40%上限。在与一家消费者权益非政府组织的朋友交谈后，她得知该利率是非法的。她起诉 QuickCash 有限公司，要求追回她支付的超额利息。QuickCash 有限公司辩称劳拉是非法合同的一方，当法院不应给予其援助。
Question: Advise Laura on whether she can recover the excess interest paid to QuickCash Ltd. Your answer should focus on whether the illegality of the contract can itself be used as an unjust factor to ground her claim.
问题：请就劳拉是否可以追回支付给 QuickCash Ltd.的超额利息提供建议。你的回答应重点讨论合同的非法性本身是否可以作为不当因素来支持她的索赔。
回答：
Introduction 引言
This advice concerns Laura's right to recover excess interest paid to QuickCash Ltd under a loan agreement with an illegally high interest rate. Laura's claim would be in the law of unjust enrichment. While QuickCash Ltd will defend on the basis that the contract was illegal, Laura can argue that the illegality itself constitutes the unjust factor grounding her claim, as she belongs to a class of persons the legislation was designed to protect.
本意见涉及劳拉根据与 QuickCash Ltd 签订的利率非法高昂的贷款协议，有权追回多付利息的问题。劳拉的主张属于不当得利法范畴。尽管 QuickCash Ltd 将以合同非法为由进行抗辩，劳拉可以主张非法本身构成其主张的不当因素，因为她属于立法旨在保护的特定群体。
Applying the four-step framework from Shanghai Tongji, the analysis is as follows:
根据上海同济案的四步框架，分析如下：
1. & 2. Enrichment at the Expense of the Plaintiff
1. 与 2. 受益于原告的财产
The first two elements are straightforward. QuickCash Ltd was enriched by the receipt of the HK$10,000 interest payment from Laura . This enrichment was at Laura's expense, as she made the payment directly to the company.
前两个要素较为明确。QuickCash Ltd 因收到劳拉支付的 10,000 港元利息而获益。该获益是以劳拉为代价的，因为她是直接向该公司支付该款项。
3. Unjust Factor: Illegality (The Protected Class Principle)
3. 不当得利因素：非法性（受保护阶层原则）
The central issue is whether the enrichment was unjust. The most relevant unjust factor here is illegality, specifically the doctrine that allows recovery for members of a "protected class" .
核心问题在于该得利是否不当。此处最相关的不当因素是非法性，具体指允许“受保护阶层”成员请求返还的原则。
The law states that where a statute renders a contract illegal primarily to protect a specific class of persons from oppression or exploitation, a member of that class is not considered to be in pari delicto (equally at fault) and can seek restitution of benefits transferred under the illegal contract .
法律规定，当某一法规主要为了保护特定阶层免受压迫或剥削而使合同非法时，该阶层成员不被视为与对方同等过错（pari delicto），可以请求返还根据非法合同转移的利益。
This principle, established in cases like Kiriri Cotton Co Ltd v Dewani , is directly applicable here:
该原则在 Kiriri Cotton Co Ltd 诉 Dewani 案等判例中确立，直接适用于本案：
Statutory Purpose: The "Financial Services (Vulnerable Consumers) Ordinance" has an express purpose stated in its preamble: "to protect inexperienced and low-income borrowers from predatory lending practices" . This is not merely a regulatory or criminal statute; its explicit aim is protective.
法定目的：《金融服务（弱势消费者）条例》在其序言中明确指出其目的：“保护缺乏经验和低收入借款人免受掠夺性贷款行为的侵害”。这不仅仅是一部监管或刑事法规；其明确目标是保护性。
Laura's Position: Laura fits perfectly within this protected class. She is a "recent graduate," "financially inexperienced," and was in "urgent need of money," making her precisely the type of vulnerable consumer the Ordinance seeks to shield.
劳拉的立场：劳拉完全符合这一受保护群体的特征。她是“应届毕业生”，“缺乏财务经验”，且“急需资金”，正是该条例旨在保护的弱势消费者类型。
Application: By charging an 80% interest rate, QuickCash Ltd acted in direct contravention of the Ordinance's 40% cap. To allow QuickCash Ltd to retain the illegally obtained excess interest would be to reward the very predatory practice the law was designed to prevent and would completely stultify the Ordinance's protective purpose .
适用性：QuickCash 有限公司收取 80%的利率，明显违反了条例规定的 40%上限。允许 QuickCash 有限公司保留非法获得的超额利息，无异于奖励法律旨在防止的掠夺性行为，完全削弱了条例的保护目的。
Therefore, the illegality of the contract, when viewed through the lens of its protective purpose, serves as the unjust factor making QuickCash Ltd's enrichment unjust.
因此，从保护目的的角度看，合同的非法性构成了使 QuickCash 有限公司获益不当的不公因素。
4. The Defence of Illegality
4. 非法抗辩
QuickCash Ltd's defence, that the court should not assist Laura as she was a party to an illegal contract, will fail. As explained above, the "protected class" doctrine is a direct exception to the general ex turpi causa rule . The law does not see the parties as equally culpable; the primary responsibility for the illegality rests with the lender who imposed the illegal terms on a vulnerable party .
QuickCash Ltd 提出的抗辩，即法院不应协助 Laura，因为她参与了非法合同，将不成立。如上所述，“受保护阶层”原则是对一般 ex turpi causa 规则的直接例外。法律并不认为双方同等有责；非法行为的主要责任在于向弱势一方强加非法条款的贷款方。
This case is distinguishable from Green v Portsmouth Stadium Ltd , where a civil remedy of restitution was held to be inconsistent with a statute that only provided for criminal penalties. Here, allowing restitution is not inconsistent with, but rather furthers, the clear protective policy of the Ordinance. The Ordinance is silent on civil recovery, but unlike in Green, denying recovery would directly undermine its core objective .
本案有别于 Green 诉 Portsmouth Stadium Ltd 案，该案中民事返还救济被认为与仅规定刑事处罚的法规不符。此处，允许返还不仅不与该条例的明确保护政策相抵触，反而促进了该政策。该条例对民事追偿保持沉默，但与 Green 案不同，拒绝追偿将直接破坏其核心目标。
Conclusion and Advice 结论与建议
Laura should be advised that she has a very strong claim in unjust enrichment to recover the excess interest she paid to QuickCash Ltd. She falls squarely within the class of persons the Ordinance was intended to protect, and therefore the illegality of the interest charge itself provides the unjust factor for her claim.
应建议 Laura，她在不当得利方面有非常有力的主张，可以追回向 QuickCash Ltd 支付的超额利息。她正属于该条例旨在保护的群体，因此利息收费的非法性本身构成其主张的不当因素。
UE PQ Illegality (as a defence)
UE PQ 非法性（作为抗辩理由）
The Hong Kong "Interior Designers (Registration) Ordinance" makes it a criminal offence for any person to provide interior design services for a fee without being a registered and licensed designer. The Ordinance states that any contract for such services entered into by an unlicensed person is "unenforceable," but is silent on whether money paid under such a contract can be recovered.
香港《室内设计师（注册）条例》规定，任何人未经注册及持牌，不得收费提供室内设计服务，否则构成刑事罪行。该条例规定，任何无牌人士签订的此类服务合同“不可强制执行”，但未明确是否可以追回根据该合同支付的款项。
Alan wants to renovate his new apartment. He hires Brenda, who holds herself out as a professional designer. They sign a contract for Brenda to produce a full set of design blueprints for a total fee of HK$100,000. Brenda is, in fact, not licensed as required by the Ordinance.
艾伦想装修他的新公寓。他雇佣了布伦达，布伦达自称是专业设计师。他们签订合同，布伦达将提供一整套设计蓝图，费用总计港币 100,000 元。实际上，布伦达并未按照条例要求取得执照。
Alan, mistakenly believing the contract requires the full fee to be paid upfront, transfers the entire HK100,000toBrenda.Adaylater,here−readsthecontractandrealiseshismistake:hewasonlyrequiredtopayaHK50,000 deposit. He calls Brenda to point out his mistake and asks for HK$50,000 back. During the call, an annoyed Brenda admits she is not a licensed designer.
艾伦误以为合同要求全额预付，便将全部港币 100,000 元转给了布伦达。一天后，他重新阅读合同，意识到自己错了：他只需支付港币 50,000 元的定金。他打电话给布伦达指出错误，并要求退还港币 50,000 元。通话中，恼怒的布伦达承认自己并非持牌设计师。
Alan, now aware of both his mistake and the illegality, sues Brenda for the return of the full HK$100,000. Brenda refuses to return any money, arguing that their entire contract was illegal and the court should not assist Alan.
艾伦现在意识到自己的错误和违法行为，起诉布伦达要求返还全部 10 万港元。布伦达拒绝返还任何款项，辩称他们的整个合同都是非法的，法院不应协助艾伦。
Question: Advise Alan on his claim to recover the HK$100,000 from Brenda. Your answer must specifically address the defence of illegality that Brenda will raise.
问题：请就艾伦向布伦达追讨 10 万港元的请求提供建议。你的答案必须具体针对布伦达将提出的违法抗辩进行论述。
答案：
Alan has a prima facie claim for restitution based on the unjust factor of Mistake, as he mistakenly paid HK100,000insteadoftheHK50,000 required. The central issue is whether Brenda can defeat this claim by raising the defence of illegality.
艾伦基于错误这一不当得利因素，初步拥有返还请求权，因为他错误地支付了 10 万港元，而实际应付为 5 万港元。核心问题在于布伦达是否能通过提出违法抗辩来驳回该请求。
Following the Court of Appeal's decision in Monat Investment Ltd, a Hong Kong court would apply the flexible, policy-based "trio of considerations" framework established in Patel v Mirza.
根据上诉法院在 Monat Investment Ltd 案中的判决，香港法院将适用 Patel 诉 Mirza 案中确立的灵活、基于政策的“三重考量”框架。
(a) The Underlying Purpose of the Prohibition... Denying restitution... would directly undermine the purpose of the legislation.
(a) 禁止令的根本目的……拒绝返还将直接破坏立法的目的。
(b) Other Relevant Public Policies... Denying his claim would conflict with... The policy of preventing unjust enrichment... [and] The policy of upholding contractual remedies...
(b) 其他相关公共政策……拒绝他的请求将与……防止不当得利的政策……[以及] 维护合同救济的政策相冲突。
(c) Proportionality... a denial would be disproportionate.
(c) 比例原则……拒绝返还将是不相称的。
Weighing the trio of considerations, the illegality defence is very likely to fail.
权衡这三项考虑，违法抗辩很可能会失败。
UE PQ Incapacity UE PQ 无行为能力
Leo, a 17-year-old student in Hong Kong who looks older than his age, is a passionate gamer. He receives a large sum of "lai see" money for Chinese New Year. He goes to CyberStore, an electronics shop, and makes two separate purchases:
Leo 是一名 17 岁的香港学生，外表看起来比实际年龄大，他是一个热衷于电子游戏的玩家。春节期间，他收到了大量的“利是”钱。他前往电子产品店 CyberStore，进行了两笔独立的购买：
He pays the total HK$30,000 in cash from his savings. A month later, Leo's parents discover the purchases. They are angry about the expensive gaming computer and take Leo back to the store with both computers, demanding a full refund. The gaming computer is slightly used but in perfect condition. CyberStore refuses to provide any refund.
他用自己的储蓄现金支付了总计 30,000 港元。一个月后，Leo 的父母发现了这些购买。他们对昂贵的游戏电脑感到愤怒，带着两台电脑回到商店，要求全额退款。游戏电脑虽略有使用，但状况完好。CyberStore 拒绝提供任何退款。
Question: Advise Leo's parents on whether they can recover the HK$30,000 paid to CyberStore. Your answer should separately analyze the legal status of the contract for the school laptop and the gaming computer, and consider the relevant Hong Kong statutory provisions.
问题：请就 Leo 的父母是否能够追回支付给 CyberStore 的 30,000 港元提供法律建议。你的答案应分别分析学校笔记本电脑和游戏电脑合同的法律地位，并考虑相关的香港法定规定。
UE PQ Estoppel UE PQ 禁反言
Due to a payroll system glitch, MegaCorp HK starts paying its employee, Mr. Wong, a monthly "housing allowance" of HK$10,000, even though his employment contract does not include one.
由于工资系统故障，MegaCorp HK 开始向其员工黄先生支付每月 10,000 港元的“住房津贴”，尽管他的雇佣合同中并未包含此项。
After receiving two such payments, Mr. Wong, being an honest employee, emails the HR department to query the extra funds. The HR officer mistakenly checks the file of a different senior employee (also named Wong) and replies in a formal email: "We have checked our records. The HK$10,000 monthly housing allowance is correct and part of your remuneration package. Please disregard any previous contract versions."
在收到两次此类付款后，作为一名诚实的员工，黄先生通过电子邮件向人力资源部门查询多付的款项。人力资源官员错误地查阅了另一位同样姓黄的高级员工的档案，并在正式邮件中回复：“我们已核查记录。每月 10,000 港元的住房津贴是正确的，且属于您的薪酬待遇。请忽略之前的任何合同版本。”
Relying on this official written confirmation, Mr. Wong decides he can now afford to upgrade his living situation. He terminates his current lease on his small apartment in the New Territories (losing his two-month security deposit) and signs a new, more expensive two-year lease on a larger apartment on Hong Kong Island to be closer to work, committing himself to a significantly higher rent for the long term.
基于这一官方书面确认，黄先生决定现在可以改善他的居住条件。他终止了在新界的小公寓的现有租约（损失了两个月的押金），并签订了一份更昂贵的为期两年的租约，租住在香港岛的一套更大公寓，以便更接近工作地点，长期承担显著更高的租金。
Six months later, a new HR manager discovers the error and MegaCorp demands the immediate return of all the overpaid allowances, which now total HK$80,000.
六个月后，一位新任人力资源经理发现了错误，MegaCorp 要求立即返还所有多付的津贴，总额现为 80,000 港元。
Question: Advise Mr. Wong on whether he can raise the defence of estoppel to resist MegaCorp HK's claim for the return of the HK$80,000. Your answer should apply the specific elements of the estoppel defence.
问题：请就黄先生是否可以援引禁止反言抗辩，拒绝 MegaCorp HK 要求返还 80,000 港元的主张提供建议。您的答案应适用禁止反言抗辩的具体要素。
回答：
A defense of Estoppel requires 1) a clear representation by the plaintiff, 2) causal reliance by the defendant, and 3) a detrimental change of circumstances. (United Overseas Bank and Avon CC v Howlett). When Wong emails the HR department to query the extra funds after two months, the reply by the HR departments:"We have checked our records. The HK$10,000 monthly housing allowance is correct and part of your remuneration package. Please disregard any previous contract versions." constitute a clear representation. Then, Relying on this official written confirmation, Mr. Wong decides he can now afford to upgrade his living situation. This is a certain causal reliance made by Wong. As Wong already (six months later) signed a new, more expensive two-year lease on a larger apartment on Hong Kong Island, he already changed his circumstances dramatically. It would be a disaster for Wong if he is asked to return the housing allowance of 80000 HKD. Therefore, Wong’ defence of estoppel is likely to be established, and he would have no restitution liability to MegaCorp HK for the 80000 HKD.
禁止反言抗辩要求：1）原告的明确陈述，2）被告的因果依赖，及 3）不利的情形变化。（United Overseas Bank 与 Avon CC 诉 Howlett 案）。当黄先生在两个月后通过电子邮件向人力资源部门查询额外资金时，人力资源部门的回复：“我们已核查记录。每月 10,000 港元的住房津贴是正确的，且属于您的薪酬方案。请忽略任何之前的合同版本。”构成了明确的陈述。随后，黄先生依赖这一官方书面确认，决定现在可以负担改善居住条件。这是黄先生的明确因果依赖。由于黄先生已于六个月后签署了一份更昂贵的、为期两年的香港岛大公寓租约，他的情形已发生重大变化。如果要求黄先生返还 80,000 港元的住房津贴，将对他造成严重不利。因此，黄先生的禁止反言抗辩很可能成立，他对 MegaCorp HK 不承担 80,000 港元的返还责任。
你可以在分析“减损”(detriment)时更具体一点，即Wong的减损包括：(1) 因提早解约而损失的押金；(2) 被一份为期两年、租金更高的租约所约束的长期财务负担。
UE PQ Ministerial Receipt
UE PQ 部长收据
Laura wishes to purchase a new painting from a famous French artist, Mr. Monet. Mr. Monet's sole authorised agent in Hong Kong is Prestige Art Gallery. The gallery informs Laura that to reserve the painting, a deposit of HK$20,000 is required.
劳拉希望购买一幅著名法国艺术家莫奈先生的新画作。莫奈先生在香港的唯一授权代理是尊尚艺术画廊。画廊通知劳拉，为了预订该画作，需要支付 20,000 港元的定金。
Due to a typing error, Laura accidentally transfers HK$200,000 to Prestige Art Gallery's client account on June 1st.
由于输入错误，劳拉于 6 月 1 日错误地向尊尚艺术画廊的客户账户转账了 200,000 港元。
On June 3rd, Laura reviews her bank statement, discovers her mistake, and immediately sends an email to the gallery director with the subject line "URGENT - MISTAKEN PAYMENT". The email clearly states: "I have just realised I mistakenly sent you an overpayment of HK$180,000. Please do not transfer this excess amount to Mr. Monet and arrange for its return to me." The gallery director reads the email.
6 月 3 日，劳拉查看银行对账单，发现了错误，立即向画廊主管发送了一封主题为“紧急——错误付款”的电子邮件。邮件明确写道：“我刚刚发现我错误地多付了 180,000 港元。请不要将这笔多付的款项转给莫奈先生，并安排退还给我。”画廊主管已阅读该邮件。
On June 4th, under pressure from Mr. Monet who needs funds urgently for a new project, the gallery director transfers the full net amount received (after deducting the gallery's standard commission) to Mr. Monet's bank account in France.
6 月 4 日，在莫奈先生因新项目急需资金的压力下，画廊主管将收到的全部净额（扣除画廊的标准佣金后）转入莫奈先生在法国的银行账户。
Laura sues Prestige Art Gallery to recover the HK$180,000 overpayment.
劳拉起诉 Prestige 艺术画廊，要求追回多付的 18 万港元。
Question: Advise Prestige Art Gallery on whether it can successfully raise the defence of ministerial receipt against Laura's claim.
问题：请就 Prestige 艺术画廊是否能成功援引代理人收款抗辩，针对劳拉的诉讼提出建议。
回答：
A defence of Ministerial Receipt requires an agent has paid the money over to their principal in good faith (Transvaal and Delagoa Bay Investment Co Ltd）. In this case, PAG made the transaction to Monet on June 4th after PAG read the email of “mistaken payment” Laura sent to them on June 3rd. This means the PAG knowingly transfers the money paid by Laura to Monet, which is certainly not an act with good faith. Laura is likely to be successful sueing PAG to recover the HK 180000 overpayment.
代理人收款抗辩要求代理人善意地将款项支付给其委托人（Transvaal and Delagoa Bay Investment Co Ltd 案）。本案中，PAG 在阅读了劳拉于 6 月 3 日发出的“误付款”邮件后，于 6 月 4 日将款项转给了莫奈。这意味着 PAG 明知劳拉支付的款项是错误的，却仍将款项转给莫奈，显然不是善意行为。劳拉很可能成功起诉 PAG，追回多付的 18 万港元。
UE PQ Mistaken Payments & Constructive Trusts
UE PQ 误付款与构成信托
Apex Global Trading (Apex) is a Hong Kong company. Its accounting department receives a fraudulent "spoof" email, appearing to be from Apex's CEO, instructing them to make an urgent payment of HK$5 million for a "confidential acquisition" to a new supplier's account. The recipient company is Zenith Solutions Ltd (Zenith).
Apex Global Trading（Apex）是一家香港公司。其会计部门收到一封伪造的“钓鱼”电子邮件，邮件看似来自 Apex 的首席执行官，指示他们紧急支付 500 万港元，用于一项“机密收购”，支付至一家新供应商的账户。收款公司为 Zenith Solutions Ltd（Zenith）。
Believing the instruction is genuine, Apex's accounting department makes the transfer. The payment is therefore made under a mistake of fact induced by fraud.
会计部门误以为指示真实，遂进行转账。因此，该付款是在因欺诈引起的事实错误下进行的。
Apex discovers the fraud two days later. Its lawyers quickly find out that Zenith is a newly incorporated shell company with no other assets, and its bank account in Hong Kong was opened just one week before receiving the HK5million.ThedirectorofZenithhasalreadywithdrawnHK1 million in cash and is untraceable. The remaining HK$4 million is still sitting in Zenith's bank account. A personal claim against the shell company, Zenith, is likely to be worthless.
两天后，Apex 发现了该欺诈行为。其律师迅速查明，Zenith 是一家新成立的空壳公司，没有其他资产，其在香港的银行账户是在收到 500 万港元前一周刚开立。Zenith 的董事已提取了 100 万港元现金，且下落不明。剩余的 400 万港元仍存于 Zenith 的银行账户。针对空壳公司 Zenith 的个人索赔可能毫无价值。
Question: Apex immediately commences legal action. It seeks a declaration that Zenith Solutions Ltd holds the remaining HK$4 million on a constructive trust for it. Advise Apex on the likelihood of its claim for this proprietary remedy succeeding, with reference to the principles laid out in Westdeutsche and their application in Hong Kong.
问题：Apex 立即提起法律诉讼。其寻求一项声明，确认 Zenith Solutions Ltd 对剩余的 400 万港元负有建设性信托责任。请根据 Westdeutsche 案中确立的原则及其在香港的适用情况，向 Apex 就其请求该专有救济的成功可能性提供建议。
回答：
Apex's claim is unjust enrichment, based on the unjust factor of Mistake of Fact (induced by fraud). Since a personal remedy against a shell company like Zenith is worthless, the crucial issue is whether Apex can establish a proprietary remedy in the form of a constructive trust over the remaining HK$4 million.
Apex 的主张基于不当得利，理由是不当因素——事实错误（由欺诈引起）。由于针对像 Zenith 这样的空壳公司提起的人身救济无效，关键问题在于 Apex 是否能够确立对剩余 400 万港元的建设性信托形式的专有救济。
The leading authority on this issue is the obiter dictum of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche v Islington. He established a two-part test for the imposition of a constructive trust in cases of mistaken payment:
该问题的权威判例是 Westdeutsche 诉 Islington 案中 Lord Browne-Wilkinson 的附带意见。他确立了在错误付款案件中施加建设性信托的两步测试：
The recipient (D) must have knowledge of the mistake, such that their conscience is affected; and
受领人（D）必须知道该错误，以致其良知受到影响；且
The property must remain identifiable and traceable at the time the recipient's conscience is affected.
财产在受领人良知受到影响时必须保持可识别和可追踪。
Applying this test to the facts:
将此标准应用于事实：
(1) Identifiable Property: The facts state that HK$4 million is "still sitting in Zenith's bank account." This is a specific, segregated fund that is clearly identifiable and can be the subject of a trust. This condition is satisfied.
(1) 可识别财产：事实陈述港币 400 万元“仍存放在 Zenith 的银行账户中”。这是一个具体的、独立的资金，明确可识别，且可以作为信托的标的。此条件已满足。
(2) Recipient's Knowledge: The recipient is Zenith, a shell company. The knowledge of its director, who is the "directing mind and will" of the company, is legally attributed to the company itself. The facts state the director is part of the fraud scheme. Therefore, Zenith, through its director, knew from the moment of receipt that the HK$5 million payment was the proceeds of fraud and not a legitimate payment. Zenith knew it had no right to the money. Its conscience was affected from the outset.
(2) 受领人的知识：受领人为 Zenith，一家空壳公司。其董事作为公司的“指导思想和意志”，其知识在法律上归属于公司本身。事实表明该董事参与了诈骗计划。因此，Zenith 通过其董事，从收到款项之时起即知悉这笔 500 万元港币的支付是诈骗所得，而非合法支付。Zenith 知道其无权获得该款项。其良知自始即受到影响。
Conclusion: 结论：
Since both conditions from Westdeutsche—the existence of identifiable property and the recipient's knowledge of the mistake—were met simultaneously at the moment of receipt, a court is highly likely to find that a constructive trust arose over the funds at that point.
由于 Westdeutsche 案中规定的两个条件——可识别财产的存在和受领人对错误的知情——在收款时同时满足，法院极有可能认定该资金自该时点起即产生了推定信托。
This conclusion is strongly supported by the established practice of the Hong Kong Court of First Instance. As noted in cases like Sultana Distribution Services Inc, the courts in Hong Kong have consistently applied the Westdeutsche principles in cyber-fraud cases to impose a constructive trust, providing an effective proprietary remedy for victims.
这一结论得到了香港原讼法院既定做法的有力支持。如 Sultana Distribution Services Inc 等案件所示，香港法院在网络诈骗案件中一贯适用 Westdeutsche 原则，设立推定信托，为受害人提供有效的财产救济。
Therefore, Apex has a very strong claim for a declaration that Zenith holds the remaining HK$4 million on a constructive trust for it, allowing Apex to recover the funds ahead of any other potential creditors of Zenith.
因此，Apex 有非常强的主张，要求宣告 Zenith 对剩余的 400 万港元负有推定信托责任，从而使 Apex 能够优先于 Zenith 的其他潜在债权人追回该款项。