Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 5 doc

... describes the unwinding of a mutual contract in its totality: A asks for restitutio in integrum and in order to be successful has to offer restitutio in integrum. Restitutio in integrum means that ... 161, 52 , 57 ; Reuter and Martinek, Ungerechtfertigte Bereicherung, 216; Lorenz in: Staudinger, § 817, n. 12). A different solution was found in BGH 1990 ZIP 9 15, concerning a ba...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
327
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 2 doc

... Svenska International plc [19 95] 1 All ER 54 5 at 55 6 ff.; Kleinwort Benson v. Birmingham City Council [1997] QB 380; Guinness Mahon & Co. Ltd v Kensington & Chelsea Royal LBC [1999] QB 2 15 ... the parties’ mistake? And if a contract is invalid, can the parties recover what they trans- ferred? Regarding mistakes at law, the following distinction is made in 4 Birks, Introductio...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
281
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 10 doc

... does not infringe the policy underlying the rule invalidating the contract. 2 75 So, after all, enrichment law cannot ignore the reasons 267 Zweigert and K ¨ otz, Introduction, 55 6, 55 7. See also ... Bankton, Institutes, Book I, Title 24, 2; Bell, Principles, § 55 7; Reid v. Lord Ruthven (1918) 55 SLR 616 at 618 (admittedly an unsatisfactory case), all citing (or in Bell’s case misci...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

73
465
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 1 potx

... 28, 106, 168, 169, 173, 227, 250 , [1991] 2 AC 54 8 (HL) 51 4– 15, 51 7, 51 8, 51 9, 57 5, 630, 634 5, 641–3, 655 , 668–9, 703, 712, 717, 722 Lloyds Bank plc v. Independent Insurance Co. Ltd [2000] QB 110; [1999] ... 187–8 Macmillan Inc. v. Bishopsgate Investment Trust plc [1996] 1 WLR 387 (CA) 59 0 Madrid v. Spears (1 957 ) 250 F 2d 51 (10th Cir) 3 75 376 Magee v. Pennine Insurance...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
376
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 3 pot

... different meanings depending on whether it is used in a contractual or restitutionary sense. Viscount Simon in Fibrosa distinguished these meanings in the following manner: 13 in the law relating to ... the guilty party creates the right in the innocent party to rescind instead of a right in the guilty party to recover, which seems to be a preferable way to view the problem. If,...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
252
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 4 pot

... 89 95; Graham v. Western Bank of Scotland (1 854 ) 2 M 55 9 at 56 4 per Lord Ordinary Kinloch; Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bank (1879) 6 R 55 4 at 55 7 for the defender; Maitland v. Gight (16 75) Mor 9 158 ; Bonnington ... original scope, using it to resolve the problems it was originally meant to resolve. II. The original scope of the doctrine These problems become clear if the origin of...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
340
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 6 pptx

... innocent landowner, the aggrieved party is constrained to engage in a transaction he has not freely chosen, for the purpose of minimising the aggregate loss resulting from the other party’s infringement. In ... respecting the CIA’s conﬁdential information. Since the agent’s duty of loyalty is aimed, ﬁrst and foremost, at preserving and vindicating the CIA’s control over the dissemination...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
266
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 7 pptx

... consent: instead, the primary distinction is bet- ween performance by a third party with or without an interest in doing so. (a) Performance by interested third parties Where the third party whose ... not have a clear interest that payment should not be made. 54 In certain circumstances a third party can recover even where the discharge was against the debtor’s wishes 55 In Scots la...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
225
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 8 pps

... enrichment in english law 52 5 means not insisting on a minus to the plaintiff and, broader still, accept- ing the possibility of interceptive subtraction freed from that restrictive requirement. Interceptive ... appliances’), 57 in which the owner of land (D) 55 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) at 28G–H and 29D–H. I have changed the letters used in the judgment to maintain consistency in this...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
352
0

Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 9 pdf

... impoverishment were unjustiﬁed. 57 53 Req. 15 June 1892, S 1893.1.281 note Labb ´ e, DP 1892.1 .59 6. 54 At 616. 55 Challies, Doctrine of Unjustiﬁed Enrichment, 30. 56 Contrast art. 1494, which establishes ... Fortier Inc. v. Caisse Populaire Desjardins de la Plaine [1998] RJQ 1221 at 1227, citing French doctrine. 110 [1999] 2 AC 349; [1998] 4 All ER 51 3. 111 The argument was buil...

Ngày tải lên : 05/08/2014, 13:20

80
171
0