Secondary Liability Map  次要责任图

1. D’s enrichment is unjust if P enriched D by discharging a liability of D to another person X under legal compulsion by X
   如果 P 通过履行 D 对另一人 X 的法律义务而使 D 获得不正当得利，且该履行具有 X 的法律强制性

• P & D are under a common or concurrent liability but:
  P 和 D 承担共同或并行的责任，但：

• P’s liability is secondary to D → recoupment (common law)
  P 的责任是次要于 D → 追偿（普通法）
• D should bear part of that liability
  D 应当承担部分责任

• If liability is for debt → contribution (common law)
  如果责任是针对债务 → 分摊 (普通法)
• If liability is for compensation → contribution (Civil Liability (Contribution) Ordinance (Cap 377)
  如果责任是针对赔偿 → 分摊 (《民事责任（分摊）条例》(第 377 章)

2. If the liability in (1) is a secured liability, P gains a right to be subrogated to the discharged security [in P’s own name] (i.e. subrogation to an extinguished right) where:-
   如果(1)中的责任是有担保的责任，则 P 有权代位清偿已解除的担保[以 P 自己的名义]（即代位清偿已消灭的权利），条件是：-

• D’s enrichment is the discharge of liability of D to X (i.e. typical surety case)
  D 获得的利益是 D 对 X 的责任的解除（即典型的担保人情况）
• Liability of D1 (higher ranking chargee) to X has been discharged at P’s expense, D2 (lower ranking charge) has been enriched (i.e. BFC)
  D1（顺位在先的承押人）对 X 的责任由 P 承担费用解除，D2（顺位在后的抵押权人）因此受益（即 BFC）

3. P indemnified D against a loss caused by X under a contract of indemnity, P may take over |D’s rights against X [in D’s name].  X’s liability to D has not been discharged (i.e. subrogation to subsisting rights) such that:-
   P 根据赔偿合同对 D 因 X 造成的损失进行了赔偿，P 可以[以 D 的名义]接管 D 对 X 的权利。X 对 D 的责任尚未解除（即对现有权利的代位求偿），因此：-

• Unjust enrichment (over-indemnification) is prevented
  防止不当得利（过度赔偿）
• Liability falls on the right person, since X is primarily liable, P is secondarily liable.  P recoup its loss. (i.e. typical insurance case – victim (X)’s insurer (P) subrogated to victim’s right to sue wrongdoer (D))
  责任落在正确的人身上，因为 X 负有主要责任，P 负有次要责任。P 收回其损失。（即典型的保险案例——受害人（X）的保险公司（P）代位求偿，以受害人的权利起诉侵权人（D））

Notes:  注释：

• You will see that (2) is basically a supplement claim of claim (1).  It enhances the remedy obtainable in these circumstances.
  您会发现，(2) 基本上是对 (1) 项请求的补充请求。它增强了在这些情况下可获得的救济。
• A (2) claim can also supplement a claim other than for legal compulsion, i.e. mistake, failure of consideration (i.e. Menalou).
  (2) 项请求也可以补充法律强制以外的请求，即错误、对价失败（即梅纳罗案）。
• A (3) claim falls outside legal compulsion.  It is its own specific unjust factor, but the precise formulation of the unjust factor is unclear.
  (3) 项请求不属于法律强制范畴。它是其自身特定的不公正因素，但不公正因素的具体表述尚不明确。