The English text-book writers have very little to say about conflicts in matters of quasi-contract. Dicey, who devotes only a short note to the question, is chiefly concerned with the problem of ‘classification’ and leaves it, otherwise, very much in the air. He refers in a footnote, without any discussion of its import, to a solitary case and gives no indication as to the rules which should, in his opinion, govern the matter. Westlake treats the question with more respect but with a lack of precision. He does not attempt any analysis of the different states of fact which may give rise to the problem in practice, nor does he discuss in any detail the rules to be applied. He confines himself to the statement that there can be little doubt that the proper law of a quasi-contractual obligation ought generally to be drawn from the place with which the act that occasions it has the most real connexion. Burge's Colonial and Foreign Law contains a somewhat obscure passage dealing with a very recondite aspect of the matter, but is otherwise confined to a short, statement of the views of certain Continental authors. Baty dismisses the question as being ‘comparatively unimportant’ Foote and Cheshire ignore the problem altogether, as also do the editors of the relevant title in the Hailsham edition of Halsbury's Laws of England.
Treating Wrongs as Wrongs: An Expressive Argument for Tort Law
