Template:Restitution capsule: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[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>“''Indebitatis assumpsit''”, for example. 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 dealt a short hand by the cosmic game. | [[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>“''Indebitatis 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 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: a sort of [[law of equity]] for people who don’t like the [[law of equity]]. | 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: a sort of [[law of equity]] for people who don’t like the [[law of equity]]. | ||
Revision as of 15:30, 17 February 2021
Restitution — a.k.a unjust enrichment, or money had and received — is a claim made feasible through an imaginative synthesis of long-“forgotten” rules[1] of the common law, dreamt up by Lord Goff[2] to bring justice to little old ladies, welsh hoteliers and others 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: a sort of law of equity for people who don’t like the law of equity.
- ↑ “Indebitatis assumpsit”, for example.
- ↑ See, particularly, Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd and Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms