He has started taking antidepressants.
It'll be used in the case when he
has recently started the process of taking those antidepressants.
He has been taking antidepressants.
It'll be used to signify that a significant time has passed since he
started taking the antidepressants.
He has taken antidepressants.
This and the first one are similar in context of time-frame. But this will just mean that he
has taken the antidepressants for a particular time while the first one will mean that he
either has a habit of taking antidepressants or he
has been prescribed for it.
He took antidepressants.
Similar to the previous one. The tense here is past, where as in the has taken case, it was past-participle.
SHORT ANSWER:
The present perfect is used to describe an action which causes a present state.
The past perfect is used to describe an action which caused a past state.
LONG ANSWER:
The verb form usually employed to signify your started-and-finished in the past is the simple past.
I ate dinner.
This says nothing about what went before or came after. It is a complete 'historical' action, what grammarians call perfective (not 'perfect').
The perfect constructions in English signify something different. Although they name actions which occurred in the past, they define that past action as still relevant at a later time, as causing a state which endures into that later time.
The present perfect construction employs the present form of HAVE to signal that the later time is now, Speech Time, the time when you speak or write the sentence. You use this construction to describe your present state:
I have eaten dinner (so I'm not hungry now or so I can see you immediately without having to eat dinner first, or whatever the consequence is).
The past perfect construction employs the past form of HAVE to signal that the later time is then, Reference Time, the 'historical' time defined in the sentence's larger context by your use of simple past forms. You use this construction to describe your state at that time:
I had eaten dinner (so I wasn't hungry then).
Note that perfect constructions require a context. The context for using the present perfect construction need not be specified: it 'defaults' to the present, Speech Time. But you use the past perfect only when you are narrating past events: a Reference Time must be established by using one or more past forms.
Employing the present perfect makes a statement about Speech Time, the present.
Employing the past perfect makes a statement about Reference Time, a specific point in the past.
Note also that because the present perfect construction is a statement about the present, you are not permitted to use it with an adverbial referring to a point in the past:
✲ I have eaten dinner yesterday. This must be expressed as
I ate dinner yesterday.
✲ marks a usage as unacceptable
Best Answer
In this context, any of the three choices would have essentially the same meaning. The writer is trying to define what it means to "benefit" from work performed by someone else for purposes of the legal principle under discussion. His point appears to be that from a contract law point of view, the recipient "benefits" if he gets the service that he asked for, regardless of whether that service really does him any good.
(I presume the point he is building toward is that the recipient must live up to his part of the contract -- paying the agreed price or whatever he said he would do -- even if the service turns out to not provide the benefit he expected. This makes sense to me. If, say, you hire a taxi to take you to your friend's house, and when you get there you discover that your friend is not home, you might well say that this was a wasted trip and that you did not get anything of value from it. But it's not the cab driver's fault that you didn't call ahead or make arrangements. He performed exactly the service you asked him to perform, and so you owe him the agreed-upon fare for the trip.)
So the tense of the benefit doesn't really matter here. Technically, "is benefitted" means that he is getting the benefit right now. "Was benefitted" means that he got the benefit in the past. "Has benefitted" means that he got the benefit over a period of time. Etc. But whether the benefit was in the past, the present, or was not expected to be realized until the future, the point here is that the benefit does or does not happen, not when it might happen.