Template:Restitution capsule: Difference between revisions

[[Restitution]] — a.k.a [[unjust enrichment]], or [[money had and received]] — is a claim made feasible through an imaginative synthesis of long-“forgotten” rules<ref>“''[[Indebitatus assumpsit]]''”, for example.</ref> of the [[common law]], dreamt up by Lord Goff<ref>See, particularly, {{casenote|Lipkin Gorman|Karpnale Ltd}} and {{casenote|Barclays Bank Ltd|WJ Simms}}</ref> to bring justice to [[little old ladies]], [[welsh hoteliers]] and others — not, apparently, including financial services conglomerates — who have been dealt a short hand by the cosmic game.  

Difficult cases involving such unfortunates (and the odd gambling-addict conveyancer) gave rise to an entire branch of civil law known as [[restitution]], a common lawyer’s [[duck-billed platypus]]: an ancient civil action, latterly back in fashion, that sounds neither in [[contract]] — there is none — or [[tort]] — there has been none — but sits uneasily between them, in its own jurisprudential space, rather like our old friend [[Bob Cunis]]: neither one thing nor the other; a sort of [[law of equity]] for people who don’t like the [[law of equity]] or the floppiness and uncertainty it tends to bring.