ABSTRACT
In 1951 Hubertus te Poel has two houses built by contractor Quint on land which Te Poel rents from his brother Heinrich. When construction is under way, Hubertus is unable to pay and Heinrich, the owner of the land, by right of accession becomes the owner of the houses built thereon. In a lawsuit which eventually comes before the Supreme Court, Quint demands payment for his activities by Heinrich. After all, Heinrich would have been 'unjustifiably enriched' at the expense of Quint. Since there was no explicit statutory rule for this legal claim, the Supreme Court had to fill a gap in the law. In the important judgement, in Dutch jurisprudence known as 'Quint v. Te Poel', the Supreme Court considers, among other things:
lar) cases, to a case for which no legal rules had been laid down. The judicial gap is filled by means of a construction of a new legal norm: he who constructs works (Quint), contracted to do so by the tenant (Hubertus), and who suffers damage because his co-contractor appears to be unable to make payments, does not have a case from unjustified enrichment.
