A Duty to Make Restitution

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen A. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Core ◽  
Legal Consequence ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

The rules governing impaired transfers are widely thought to lie at the core of unjust enrichment law. This essay defends two propositions about these rules. First, there is no duty, in the common law, to make restitution of benefits obtained as the result of an impaired transfer (for example, a transfer made by mistake or as a result of fraud or compulsion). Rather than imposing duties to make restitution, or indeed duties of any kind, the rules governing impaired transfers impose only liabilities, in particular liabilities to judicial rulings. The only legal consequence of a mistaken payment is that the recipient is liable to be judicially ordered to repay a sum of money equal to the payment. Second, it matters that the law governing impaired transfers imposes only liabilities, and not duties, because, inter alia, explaining and justifying liabilities is different from explaining and justifying duties. In particular, certain well-known objections to attempts to explain impaired transfer law can be avoided once it is recognized that this law is concerned exclusively with liabilities. In summary, then, this essay argues that the distinction between duty-imposing and liability-imposing rules has important implications for understanding the foundations of the law governing impaired transfers.

1. The historical origins of the trust

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
JE Penner
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
Administrative Power ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Historical Origins

Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. This chapter traces the historical roots of the trust. The law of trusts is the offspring of a certain English legal creature known as ‘equity’. Equity arose out of the administrative power of the medieval Chancellor, who was at the time the King’s most powerful minister. The nature of equity’s jurisdiction and its ability to provide remedies unavailable at common law, the relationship between equity and the common law and the ‘fusion’ of law and equity, and equity’s creation of the use, and then the trust, are discussed.

Understanding Administrative Law in the Common Law World

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Daly
Keyword(s):  
Future Development ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Pluralist Approach ◽  
Core Features

This book has three goals: to enhance understanding of administrative law; to guide future development of the law; and to justify the core features of the contemporary law of judicial review of administrative action. Around the common law world, the law of judicial review of administrative action has changed dramatically in recent decades, accelerating a centuries-long process of incremental evolution. This book offers a fresh framework for understanding the core features of contemporary administrative law. Through comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland and New Zealand, Dr Daly develops an interpretive approach by reference to four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy. The interaction of this plurality of values explains the structure of the vast field of judicial review of administrative action: institutional structures, procedural fairness, substantive review, remedies, restrictions on remedies and the scope of judicial review, everything from the rule against bias to jurisdictional error to the application of judicial review principles to non-statutory bodies. Addressing this wide array of subjects in detail, Dr Daly demonstrates how his pluralist approach, with the values being employed in a complementary and balanced fashion, can enhance academics’, students’, practitioners’ and judges’ understanding of administrative law. Furthermore, this pluralist approach is capable of guiding the future development of the law of judicial review of administrative action, a point illustrated by a careful analysis of the unsettled doctrinal area of legitimate expectation. Dr Daly closes by arguing that his values-based, pluralist framework supports the legitimacy of contemporary administrative law which although sometimes called into question in fact facilitates the flourishing of individuals, of public administration and of the liberal democratic system.

Sinclair v. Brougham

1938 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-326
Author(s):  
Lord Wright
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Company ◽  
Rate Importance

The case of Sinclair v. Brougham has been generally regarded as an authority of first-rate importance. I think it has been properly so regarded, though my reasons for so thinking may not altogether agree with the reasons emphasized by some lawyers. I regard the case as primarily significant as embodying the leading principles on which the Court acts in exercising its equitable jurisdiction to give relief in order to prevent unjust enrichment, or to achieve restitution, if we accept the useful term which has been employed in the recently published American Restatement of the Law of Restitution. The word itself is only an echo of language which will be found in English judgments, indeed, in this very case of Sinclair v. Brougham. The case shows how the Court can do justice by applying equitable principles where the Common Law would have been powerless. But since every Court is now bound in the same proceeding to apply either law or equity or both as the circumstances may require, the distinction between law and equity is now only important in the sense that the differences of method and rules must be observed. In the case we are considering a company had borrowed money for purposes for which it was ultra vires for it to borrow. There could in law be no claim for money lent and no claim in law for the repayment on the ground of quasi-contract or, to use the now obsolete phrase, contract ‘implied in law’, because to allow such a claim as a merely money claim would be to sanction an evasion of the public policy forbidding ultra vires borrowing by companies. Further, as the money lent or its products could not be identified in the company's possessions, a claim in law could not be maintained. But the powers of the Court were not exhausted. The problem was further complicated by the conflicting claims of the shareholders.

created by the common law rule were addressed by Parliament in the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, considered below, but the unjust enrichment principle is also relevant in other respects in determining whether a particular event is capable of frustrating a contract. If the decision to treat a contract as frustrated might give one of the parties an undue advantage this may operate as a justification for refusing to treat the contract as frustrated. For example, in Tamplin SS Co v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co Ltd, an oil tanker was chartered for a period of five years, but was subject to government requisition when the charterparty still had nearly three years to run. In the circumstances, there was no prejudice to the charterers, since the government compensation payable to the charterers exceeded the agreed hire charges. However, the owners of the ship claimed that the contract was frustrated. The House of Lords held, by a narrow majority, that the contract was not frustrated. One explanation for the action of the owners is that they wanted to secure the increased benefit of the government compensation in replacement for the lower hire charges. In this case, it is readily understandable that the majority of the House of Lords preferred not to allow the owners to benefit in this way at the expense of the charterers. Remedies, unjust enrichment and frustration Money paid or payable before the date of frustration

1995 ◽  
pp. 382-382
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Petroleum Products ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Undue Advantage ◽  
Oil Tanker

scholarly journals What's Wrong with Restitution

1969 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 221 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Stevens ◽  
Jason W. Neyers
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Simple Formulation ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

The law of restitution has developed out of the law of quasi-contract and the law of constructive trust. Inadequate attention to the logic and coherence of doctrines in the law of restitution, however, renders this new law as opaque and confused as its predecessor. This is largely due to the remedial mentality of the common law. The remedy to the remedial mentality is to concentrate future efforts in stating doctrine on defining rights, not remedies. The precedent for this type of change in method is the transformation that occurred in contract and tort over the past 100 years, inspired, in part, by civilian theories of private law. The right that generates the remedy restitution is the cause of action in unjust enrichment. It arises where there has been a non-consensual receipt and retention of value, that is, a receipt and retention of value that occurs without "juristic reason." "Nonconsensual" means by mistake, by theft or by finding. There are a number of problems in the method of the common law tradition which stand in the way of recognizing this simple formulation: (a) The inherent expansiveness of "restitution " and "unjust enrichment" if these terms are not rigorously defined; (b) The lack of serious competition for the expansive versions of the subject, on a number of fronts; (c) The lack of a clear direction in the efforts to reform the law of quasi-contract and constructive trust; (d) The deeply embedded nature of the quasi-contract thinking; (e) Poor analysis in some areas of the law of contract and (f) Tort; and (g) The lack of an explicit agency of reform in the tradition.

Unjust Enrichment Claims: A Comparative Overview

1995 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brice Dickson
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Characteristic Features ◽  
Struggle For Recognition

This article examines a variety of legal systems with a view to assessing the role currently played within each of them by the principle of unjust enrichment. By focusing on the characteristic features of unjust enrichment claims it seeks to demonstrate that, although there are significant differences between the ways in which different countries handle such claims, there is also much that those systems have in common. While under the common law the principle of unjust enrichment has endured a long struggle for recognition, in civil law systems it has been acknowledged for centuries. This may be because in civil law countries the principle has been expected to play only a residual, and therefore non-threatening, role in the law of obligations while in common law countries it has been called upon, if at all, to serve as the basis for the whole of the law of restitution. We should not assume, however, that all common law systems share one set of characteristics while all civil law systems share another. In some respects there is more in common between systems drawn from each category than there is between systems drawn from the same category. Mixed legal systems, as one might expect, tend to display characteristics drawn from both.

“Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” – A Common Law Response

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Level Of Abstraction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
High Level ◽  
Logical Process

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.

The Law of Contract

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
World Market ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Philosophical Foundations ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter examines the law of contract in France and discusses the milestone reform of French contract law. While this new legislation introduces a fresh equilibrium between the contracting parties and enhances accessibility and legal certainty in contract, it does not radically change the state of the law in this area. In addition, it does not strongly impact the traditional philosophical foundations of the law of contract. The reform, in short, looks more like a tidying up operation rather than a far-reaching transformation of the law. Therefore, the chapter argues that it is questionable whether the new law, which was also intended to increase France's attractiveness against the background of a world market dominated by the Common Law, will keep its promise.

The New Private Law and Intellectual Property

2020 ◽  
pp. 408-426
Author(s):  
Molly Shaffer Van Houweling
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Concepts And Categories ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Courts ◽  
Legal Concepts

This chapter studies intellectual property (IP). A hallmark of the New Private Law (NPL) is attentiveness to and appreciation of legal concepts and categories, including the traditional categories of the common law. These categories can sometimes usefully be deployed outside of the traditional common law, to characterize, conceptualize, and critique other bodies of law. For scholars interested in IP, for example, common law categories can be used to describe patent, copyright, trademark, and other fields of IP as more or less “property-like” or “tort-like.” Thischapter investigates both the property- and tort-like features of IP to understand the circumstances under which one set of features tends to dominate and why. It surveys several doctrines within the law of copyright that demonstrate how courts move along the property/tort continuum depending on the nature of the copyrighted work at issue—including, in particular, how well the work’s protected contours are defined. This conceptual navigation is familiar, echoing how common law courts have moved along the property/tort continuum to address disputes over distinctive types of tangible resources.

Admissibility of confession evidence: Principles of hearsay and the rule of voluntariness

2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110022
Author(s):  
Jennifer Porter
Keyword(s):  
Western Australia ◽  
Common Law ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
Important Policy ◽  
Oral Testimony ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Confession Evidence

The common law test of voluntariness has come to be associated with important policy rationales including the privilege against self-incrimination. However, when the test originated more than a century ago, it was a test concerned specifically with the truthfulness of confession evidence; which evidence was at that time adduced in the form of indirect oral testimony, that is, as hearsay. Given that, a century later, confession evidence is now mostly adduced in the form of an audiovisual recording that can be observed directly by the trial judge, rather than as indirect oral testimony, there may be capacity for a different emphasis regarding the question of admissibility. This article considers the law currently operating in Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia to see whether or not, in the form of an audiovisual recording, the exercise of judicial discretion as to the question of the admissibility of confession evidence might be supported if the common law test of voluntariness was not a strict test of exclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document