This book is the second in a series of essay collections on defences in private law. It addresses defences to liability arising in unjust enrichment. The essays are written from a range of perspectives and methodologies. Some are doctrinal, others are theoretical, and several offer comparative insights. The most important defence in this area of the law, change of position, is addressed in detail, but many other defences are treated too, as well as the interrelations between these defences within the law of unjust enrichment. The essays offer novel claims and ways of looking at problems in this challenging area of legal study.
This book is the first in a series of essay collections on defences in private law. It addresses defences to liability arising in tort. The essays range from those adopting a primarily doctrinal approach to others that examine the law from a more theoretical or historical perspective. Some essays focus on individual defences, while some are concerned with the links between defences, or with how defences relate to the structure of tort law as a whole. A number of the essays also draw upon concepts and literature that have been developed mainly in relation to the criminal law, and consider their application to tort law. The essays make several original contributions to this complex, important but neglected field of academic enquiry.
This book is the third in a series of essay collections on defences in private law. It addresses defences to liability arising in contract. The essays range from those adopting a predominantly black-letter approach to others that examine the law from a more theoretical or historical perspective. Some essays focus on individual defences, while others are concerned with the links between defences, or with how defences relate to the structure of contract law generally. One goal of the book is to determine what light can be shed on contract law doctrines by analysing them through the lens of defences. The contributors – judges and academics – are all leading jurists. The essays are addressed to all of the major common law jurisdictions.
Unjustified enrichment has been one of the most intellectually vital areas of private law. There is, however, still no unanimity among civil-law and common-law legal systems about how to structure this important branch of the law of obligations. Several key issues are considered comparatively in this 2002 book, including grounds for recovery of enrichment, defences, third-party enrichment, as well as proprietary and taxonomic questions. Two contributors deal with each topic, one a representative of a common-law system, the other a representative of a civil-law or mixed system. This approach illuminates not just similarities or differences between systems, but also what different systems can learn from one another. In an area of law whose territory is still partially uncharted and whose borders are contested, such comparative perspectives will be valuable for both academic analysis of the law and its development by the courts.
The identity and existence of a loss-based defence in the law of unjust enrichment is disputed. Widely known as 'passing on', but better identified as 'disimpoverishment', this defence has generated confusion and disagreement across and within England, Australia, Canada and the United States of America. This book seeks to address these problems in three ways. First, by providing a solution to the defence's terminological problems and presenting a coherent picture of the current state of the law. Secondly, by examining whether a defendant's unjust enrichment can be said to have come 'at the expense of' a claimant when a third party has borne the cost of that enrichment. Put another way, whether awards of restitution are, or should be, restricted by the value of a claimant's loss. And finally, by analyzing the reasons in favour of accepting or rejecting a loss-based defence in the law of unjust enrichment. Numerous scholarly textbooks and law journals have devoted space to these issues. This work, however, has tended to focus narrowly on either particular cases or sets of issues. This book seeks to address this deficiency by collating, and providing total coverage of, the controversies and questions pertaining to a loss-based defence in the law of unjust enrichment.This work will be essential reading for anyone interested in the law of restitution, and in its relationship with other areas of private law.
This book is the fourth in a series of essay collections on defences in private law. It addresses defences to liability arising in equity. The essays range from those adopting a mainly doctrinal perspective to others that explore the law from a more philosophical perspective. Some essays concentrate on specific defences, while others are concerned with the links between defences, or with how defences relate to the structure of the law of equity generally. One aim of the book is to shed light on equitable doctrines by analysing them through the lens of defences. The essays offer original contributions to this complex, important but neglected field of scholarly investigation. The contributors – judges, practitioners and academics – are all distinguished jurists. The essays are addressed to all of the major common law jurisdictions.
This essay examines an unresolved question in English law: is there a defence of good consideration to a claim for restitution of an unjust enrichment? It argues that there is no defence, as such, of good consideration. Rather the main issues thought to be raised by this defence relate to the much bigger question of the interplay between the 'unjust factor' and the fact that the enrichment was owed by the claimant to the defendant. It is possible to deal with this interplay by treating enrichment owed as a defence and this approach derives strong support from the United States Restatement Third: Restitution and Unjust Enrichment. However, the preferable strategy is to treat the fact that the enrichment was owed by the claimant to the defendant as an 'upfront' matter relating to prima facie liability, with the legal burden of proof being on the claimant, and not as a defence. At a deeper level, this involves recognising that the unjust factors and the civilian 'absence of basis' approaches are closer than has traditionally been thought.
This final report concludes a long-running review of the illegality defence, which has considered how the defence applies to the law of contract, unjust enrichment, tort and trusts. The illegality defence arises when the defendant in a private law action argues that the claimant should not be entitled to their normal rights or remedies because they have been involved in illegal conduct which is linked to the claim. If the courts accept the illegality defence, it often involves granting an unjustified windfall to the defendant, who may be equally implicated in the illegality. However, if the courts refuse, they may be seen to be helping a claimant who has behaved illegally. The courts have attempted to set out rules to govern this area, but the rules are complex and confused. The Commission's final recommendations follow the provisional recommendations in a 2009 consultative report (Consultation paper 189, ISBN 9780118404617). In contract, tort and unjust enrichment cases, the courts are showing more willingness to explain the policy reasons that underlie their decisions, and the Commission believes the law should be left to develop through the case law. But in the area of trusts, the Commission recommends a short, targeted bill to amend the law, and a seven clause draft bill is included in the report, along with explanatory notes on the draft bill and an impact assessment.
This new edition of Unjust Enrichment by the editor of the Clarendon Law Series, is a fully updated, clear and concise account of the law of unjust enrichment. It attempts to move away from the use of obscure terminology inherited from the past. This text is the first book to insist on the switch from restitution to unjust enrichment, from response to event. It organises modern law around five simple questions: Was the defendant enriched? If so, was it at the claimant's expense? If so, was it unjust? The fourth question is then what kind of right the claimant has, and the fifth is whether the defendant has any defences. This second edition was revised and updated by Peter Birks before his death from cancer on 6 July 2004 at the age of 62. It represents the final thinking of the world's leading authority on the subject.
The publication of the Restatement Third: Unjust Enrichment and Restitution by the American Law Institute in July 2010 was an event of major importance, not only for the development of the law of unjust enrichment in the US, but also for global scholarship relating to this area of private law. The Restatement First appeared in 1937, and the Restatement Second was abandoned; hence the Restatement Third is the most significant survey of the American law on this topic for over 70 years. Private law has been a comparatively neglected area of study in US law schools for several decades, and this is particularly true of the law of unjust enrichment. However, the appearance of the Restatement Third has prompted a renewal of interest in the subject among US scholars, and it is hoped that the present volume of essays will contribute to this revival, while reflecting on the lessons to be learned from the Restatement by other legal systems. Featuring the work of leading scholars from the UK, Germany, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong and Australia, the essays undertake critical and comparative analysis of the Restatement, and offer fresh insights into the rules that it articulates.