Template:Restitution capsule: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "Restitution — a.k.a unjust enrichment, or money had and received — is a claim made feasible through an imaginative synthesis of long-“forgotten” rules of t..."
 
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 of the [[common law]], dreamt up by Lord Goff<ref>See, particularly, {{casenote|Lipkin Gorman|Karpnale Ltd}}</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 of the [[common law]], dreamt up by Lord Goff<ref>See, particularly, {{casenote|Lipkin Gorman|Karpnale Ltd}}</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]], which sits uneasily between the [[common law]] of [[contract]] and [[tort]], seeming as it does to confuse the two, and 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 11:40, 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 of the common law, dreamt up by Lord Goff[1] 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.

  1. See, particularly, Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd