English unjust enrichment law

620:

party, the plaintiff would bring an action for money paid to the defendant's use. If instead the defendant had received services or goods, the plaintiff would recover bring a quantum meruit or a quantum valebat, respectively. These were claims for the reasonable value of the services or goods. It is no longer necessary to plead one's form of action. Whilst lawyers often draft their claims by reference to this language, academic commentators tend to analyse the law without regard to such historical distinctions. In short, an 'enrichment' for the purposes of the modern law may include, amongst other things: (i) money; (ii) services; (iii)

681:

that the benefit was an incontrovertible benefit - that is, a benefit that no reasonable person in the defendant's position would deny. The reason was that 'justice requires that a person, who ... has a benefit or the right to a benefit for which he knows that he has not bargained or paid, should reimburse the value ... if it is readily returnable without substantial difficulty or detriment and he chooses to retain it'. That is, Mr McDonald's refusal to return the number plate suggested that he did sufficiently value the benefit, particularly when it was easily returnable.

450:

the circumstances. To this end, 'unjust enrichment' has been treated as a descriptive, taxonomical term with precise legal content: it does not invite some broad, discretionary examination of what is just or equitable on the facts of the case. The framework is treated as conclusive of liability, producing a clear answer to whether a defendant is obliged to give restitution of a benefit acquired at another's expense.

728: 3701:

fell, the councils would win. As it happened, interest rates were going up and the banks were winning. Islington was due to pay £1,354,474, but after Hazell, it refused, and waited to see what the courts said. At first instance Hobhouse J said that because the contract for the swap scheme was void, the council had been unjustly enriched with the lump sum (£2.5m) and it should have to pay

1407:. This means that the claimant must not have received any part of the bargained-for counter-performance; or, more accurately, that the defendant must not have commenced rendering performance. The total failure rule has been subject to persistent academic criticism. It is subject to several qualifications. In such cases, the claimant may still be entitled to restitution. Examples include: 4080:. Even if not (for the foreseeable future) a part of the law of unjust enrichment, a claim to the traceable proceeds of one's property remains part of the law of restitution. The remainder of this section concerns proprietary restitution. Proprietary restitution is where a claimant who is entitled to restitution is awarded a proprietary remedy. 3714:

is an ‘absence of basis’ for the transfer of property. Searching through or adding to a list of open ended unjust factors simply concludes on grounds of what one wishes to prove, grounds that ‘would have to be constantly massaged to ensure that they dictated an answer as stable as is reached by the shorter ‘non basis’ route.’ (Birks (2005) 113)

277:

wider than contract, encompassing compensation claims arising out of tortious conduct. This is equally true of restitution: a claimant can obtain restitution not only for an unjust enrichment, but also for a tort. It is in this sense that one can say that restitution is multi-causal: it is a legal response to a number of different events.

725:

illustrates that one's discharge of a liability of another can constitute an 'enrichment' for the purposes of the law of unjust enrichment. In modern language, this was a claim for recoupment. Whether the principle underlying recoupment and contribution is 'unjust enrichment' remains a controversial question.

3713:

AC 669, the council had no authority to enter into a complex swap transaction with the German bank. So the House of Lords held that the council should repay the money they had been lent and a hitherto unknown ‘unjust’ factor was added to the list. Birks argued that the better explanation in all cases

3700:

2 AC 1. Banks paid councils a lump sum (for Islington, £2.5m). The councils then paid the banks back at the prevailing interest rate. Banks paid councils back a fixed interest rate (this is the swap part). The point was that councils were gambling on what interest rates would do. So if interest rates

1808:

Historically, the law took a highly restrictive approach to recovery for mistake. First, the law only recognised mistakes which related to a matter of fact, rather than law. This rule was judicially abandoned in 1999. Secondly, the mistake had to be a "supposed liability" mistake. This meant that the

289:

It would be misleading to exaggerate the level of controversy, however. At least in English law, there is high authority accepting the principle of unjust enrichment as having fundamental explanatory force in this area of law. Recent decisions have continue to clarify key aspects of actions in unjust

4063:

forms part of the law of unjust enrichment. If correct, this would be an instance of unjust enrichment generating a proprietary remedy. English courts have since accepted that the concept of unjust enrichment has a role to play in subrogation. The English approach has been stridently rejected by the

1046:

Establishing that a defendant has received a benefit at the expense of the claimant in circumstances which are unjust gives rise to a prima facie right to restitution. In most cases, this is typically a personal right to the money value of the benefit conferred. Liability is strict: there is no need

342:

of the benefit received by the defendant. As the law has extended beyond such claims, unjust enrichment scholars have debated the scope of proprietary relief: that is, whether the court should recognise that (or declare that) the claimant has a beneficial or security interest in property held by the

276:

which gives rise to it (unjust enrichment). In doing so, it is akin to treating contract (an event which gives rise to an obligation to perform) as coterminous with compensation (the law's response to non-performance or defective performance). That approach is problematic: the law of compensation is

982:

The requirement that the enrichment be 'at the claimant's expense' distinguishes restitution for unjust enrichment from restitution for wrongs. In the former case, there must be a subtraction from the wealth of the claimant, at least in a notional sense. In the latter, there is no such requirement.

680:

worth £15,000. By the time anyone realised, the plate had been registered in his name. He was therefore entitled to it under statute. The claimants (assignees of the original owners) sought restitution. Was Mr McDonald 'enriched' by receipt of a number plate personalised for another? The Court held

449:

On the one hand, scholars have sought to provide a coherent, rational and principled structure to an area of law once riddled with legal fiction. They have also sought to avoid the perception that courts are dispensing palm tree justice by engaging in an open-ended consideration of the injustice of

453:

On the other hand, some have suggested that the framework has too much of a 'broad-brush or legislative flavour'. The UK Supreme Court recently referred to the framework as 'broad headings for ease of exposition' and emphasised that they do not have 'statutory force'. This debate about the precise

355:

appears to remain an accurate statement of the place of unjust enrichment in the Anglo-Australian law of obligations: " constitutes a unifying legal concept which explains why the law recognises, in a variety of distinct categories of case, an obligation on the part of a defendant to make fair and

165:

During the course of the 18th and 19th centuries the law of contract, the law of tort and the law of trusts emerged as discrete bodies of law within English private law. As many thought they covered the field, restitutionary claims as embodied in the common money counts were appended to the law of

314:

English law has typically adopted an 'unjust factor' approach, whereby the claimant must positively identify a reason why the defendant's enrichment is 'unjust'. 'Unjust' is a generalisation of all the circumstances in which the law calls for restitution. Recognised grounds of restitution include

1799:

claim for restitution of the benefit. Where one person pays money to another whilst labouring under a causative mistake of fact or law, he or she may be entitled to restitution on the ground of mistake. Restitution for a mistaken payment is widely regarded as the paradigm case of restitution for

1000:

In contrast to the English approach, most civil law jurisdictions adopt an 'absence of basis' analysis. On this view, a defendant's enrichment is 'unjustified' where there is no 'basis' for the defendant's receipt. An example of a 'basis' is where a defendant receives a benefit under a valid and

987:

receives a benefit in breach of the 'no profit' rule, the defaulting fiduciary will hold that property on constructive trust for the principal. In such a case, the principal will have a direct (proprietary) claim against the fiduciary to recover the benefit. It does not matter that the principal

761:

Courts have generally adopted the view that there need not be complete 'equivalence' between loss and gain, provided there is a causal connection. This issue is related to the question whether there should be a 'passing on' defence: that is, whether a claimant should be able to recover from the

619:

Historically, the nature of one's claim differed depending upon the nature of the enrichment. For example, if the defendant had received money, the plaintiff would bring an action for money had and received. If the plaintiff had discharged a liability of the defendant by paying money to a third

432:

In that case, a company paid out a life insurance policy to a widow by mistake. The company brought an action for money had and received against the widow, seeking restitution of the mistaken payment. Analysed in modern language, the widow had been enriched at the company's direct expense. The

724:

held that the money could be recovered. Grose J said 'the law implies a promise by the three defendants to repay'. The law now recognises that the implication of a request by Partridge and a promise to pay Exall for the benefit (namely, the discharge of the liability) is fictitious. The case

4051:

counts only afforded a personal remedy. Hence where the claimant's action would have been brought as an action for money had and received, for money paid, or as a quantum meruit or quantum valebat, the claimant is only entitled to a money award. In short, an action for restitution of unjust

462:

As a matter of day-to-day practice, it is this framework which is routinely applied as the organising structure for the law. Nevertheless, practitioners frequently plead claims by reference to the old common counts. It is not yet possible to articulate the law without reference to these old

996:

In the eyes of the law, there is nothing objectionable about being enriched at the expense of another. But the law will intervene when such enrichment is 'unjust'. The question of injustice is not at large. English law adopts an 'unjust factor' approach to the law of restitution for unjust

174:

held that: "My Lords, the exact status of the law of unjust enrichment is not yet assured. It holds a predominant place in the law of Scotland and, I think, the United States, but I am content for the purposes of this case to accept the view that it forms no part of the law of England..."

754:

Recent case law suggests that English law is moving away from a strict requirement that the enrichment come directly from the claimant. For example, courts have been willing to turn their attention to questions of causation and the 'economic reality' of the transaction, in lieu of strict

1092:

Outlined below are the 'unjust factors' which have been recognised (or proposed) within the English law of unjust enrichment. Some of these doctrines feature in the law of contract, where they are termed 'vitiating factors'. The applicable principles are not always the same, however.

3705:(lots) rather than simple interest (lots, but not so much). But luckily for local government, three law Lords held that Islington only needed to repay with simple interest. There was no jurisdiction for compound interest. They said this was because there was no ‘resulting trust’. 4511:

refers to the obligation of the party claiming recovery to repay any benefits they themselves have obtained. Where this party has obtained benefits which cannot be repaid, and therefore counter restitution is impossible, then their claim for recovery of benefits will be barred.

4043:

If a claimant can establish that the defendant has been enriched at the claimant's expense in circumstances which are unjust, the claimant has a prima facie right to restitution. The question then becomes whether the claimant is entitled to a personal or a proprietary remedy.

356:

just restitution for a benefit derived at the expense of a plaintiff and which assists in the determination, by the ordinary processes of legal reasoning, of the question whether the law should, in justice, recognise such an obligation in a new or developing category of case.

285:

Controversy continues to surround many aspects of the modern law of unjust enrichment. This controversy extends to its existence as an independent body of law, some arguing that the concept of unjust enrichment lacks the explanatory power it is so frequently asserted to have.

1050:

The question then becomes whether there is a relevant bar or whether the defendant has a valid defence. Defences to restitutionary claims is a broader topic than defences to actions in unjust enrichment. Examples of defences or bars to restitutionary claims include:

627:

Whether a defendant has been enriched (and the proper valuation thereof) is determined objectively. Nevertheless, the law does take account of the defendant's autonomy. This is through the notion of 'subjective devaluation'. In effect, a defendant is entitled to say

4075:

have argued that claims to the traceable substitute of one's property are claims in unjust enrichment. This view has been rejected by the House of Lords. They instead held that such claims were a matter of vindicating property rights, a view long associated with

2673: 5354:

Note that it is generally not possible to obtain restitution on the ground of total failure of consideration where a contract is subsisting. "Contractual context" here should be interpreted broadly: it refers to situations in which there is, or was a

3098:. Where two persons bear a co-ordinate liability, they must share the burden pro rata. For example, where A and B are both under a common liability to pay C, and A pays this debt, A can claim contribution from C. Historically, this would be a suit in 1449:

Failure of consideration typically arises where a contract is "ineffective". This is not a term of art, but rather a useful tool for exposition. A contract may be ineffective for a number of reasons. Failure of consideration may arise:

1001:

subsisting contract. The difference is more than mere conceptual or semantic emphasis. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of cases, the outcome will be the same whether an 'unjust factor' or an 'absence of basis' approach is adopted.

762:

defendant despite the claimant having 'passed on' the loss to third parties. There is no such defence in England, Australia or Canada, although there are some statutory provisions providing for such a defence in each jurisdiction.

337:

The law's remedial response to unjust enrichment is particularly controversial. The historical core of unjust enrichment lies in quasi-contract. The quasi-contractual actions were common law claims which awarded a claimant the

702:

the claim. The majority held that the enrichment was the opportunity to use the money: the public revenue had effectively received a loan. The decision illustrates that one can bring a claim in respect of the 'use value' of

3735:

prefers the reasoning of Park J at first instance, which recognised that there is not really a ‘mistake’ in terms of an ‘impairment of a claimant's actual thought processes’. Lord Hoffmann recognised it only implicitly at

1690: 636:'. The law respects this argument because it protects individual autonomy. The law nevertheless 'looks for its limitations and curbs its excesses'. A plaintiff can overcome subjective devaluation by demonstrating: 252:, Professor Paul Mitchell, and Dr Stephen Watterson. A good example of the close relationship between the academy and the profession in the development of this area of law is seen in the recent publication of the 3730:

UKHL 49 at Money was paid as tax under a statutory regime, which the ECJ later held to have infringed the EC Treaty. The House of Lords held that a claim could be made on grounds of a ‘mistake as to the law’.

178:

While restitutionary obligations were not enforced solely through these quasi-contractual claims, the law of quasi-contract constitutes the core of the modern law of unjust enrichment. A seminal case is

170:'. This was because it was often necessary to plead that the defendant had promised to repay a debt, even though the promise was fictitious and the debt was imposed by the law. As recently as 1951 the 616:. This requirement distinguishes a claim in unjust enrichment from a claim in tort: the law of unjust enrichment is not concerned with compensation for loss, but rather with the restitution of gains. 307:. Cases in which a benefit is received by way of a third party can cause difficult issues for courts, given the traditional assumption that a benefit must be acquired directly from the claimant. 5501: 1883: 1603: 4215: 5050: 384: 374:

English courts have recognised that there are four steps involved in establishing a claim to restitution for unjust enrichment. This analytic framework was developed by academics such as

2982: 1809:

claimant must have laboured under the belief that he or she was under a legal obligation to pay. This rule has also been abandoned, though the implications of this remain unsettled.

253: 4236: 4118: 3718: 3709: 2550: 1990: 1128: 2159: 131:

The notion of an obligation to make restitution of benefits received at another's expense can be traced back to Roman law. Its history in English law can be traced to the

698:. Had the public revenue been 'enriched' by its early receipt of the money? The House of Lords held that compound interest was available. The question then become one of 2092: 1025: 3967: 118:. While the law has rapidly developed over the last three decades, controversy continues over the precise structure, scope and nature of the law of unjust enrichment. 71:

English courts have recognised that there are four steps required to establish a claim in unjust enrichment. If the following elements are satisfied, a claimant has a

268:

As it has developed, the law of unjust enrichment has frequently been referred to as the 'law of restitution'. The difficulty with this is that it emphasises a legal

4471: 1907: 1379:. This can be a particular source of confusion, given that the ground of restitution known as "failure of consideration" typically arises in contractual contexts. 5258: 3416: 1894: 319:

systems which may adopt an 'absence of basis' approach, whereby the claimant need only show that there is no good reason ('basis') for the defendant's enrichment.

1433:. That action was only available in respect of money claims. Where the claimant conferred a non-money benefit upon a defendant, the correct form of action was a 4311: 4201: 1502: 4488: 3452: 889: 2712: 3468: 454:

content of 'unjust enrichment' and the utility of a strict theoretical framework is closely tied to jurisprudential debates about the role of conscience and

425:

Subsequent case law and academic writing has given greater content to this commonly accepted framework. The application of the formula can be illustrated by

4097: 3797: 2869: 2514: 2380: 2175: 2025: 804: 521: 188:

Perhaps more than any other area of the common law, the law of unjust enrichment has been shaped by academic writing, particularly by that of jurists from

5508: 5263: 3559: 3349: 2885: 2736: 2446: 1616: 1080:

Not all these defences are available to all restitutionary claims. The availability of a defence may turn on: whether a restitutionary claim is legal or

492: 694:

to the public revenue. But for this mistake of law, the payment would have been deferred to a later time. The company sought recovery of the money with

5067: at -, Laws LJ critiquing the open-endedness of Lord Hoffmann's elaboration of the "unjust" step of a claim. This held an NHS trust had not acted 4147: 3143: 2686: 2351: 1659: 668: 545: 2840: 2600: 2472: 1966: 1833: 379: 171: 5810: 4566: 4459:

It means that good value is given for receipt of assets without notice of breach of trust. It is a complete defence to any knowing receipt claim.

4447: 3766: 3482: 3440: 3171: 1718: 1121: 988:(claimant) had no prior proprietary interest in the benefit, nor even that the benefit would never have otherwise been received by the principal. 787: 720:, Exall paid the rent, discharging Partridge's liability to his landlord. Exall then brought an action for money paid to the defendant's use. The 5280: 3088:

Where one person discharges the debt of another, he or she may be able to sue the debtor and thereby recoup the loss. Historically, this was a

1589: 1145: 860: 580: 569: 301:

and benefits in kind are passed. This distinction owes its origin to the fact that, historically speaking, these were different kinds of claim.

4538: 3839: 2279: 2085: 1633: 875: 1288: 4720: 4559: 4405: 2317: 2121: 848: 211: 2699: 2420: 2057:

The prevailing academic view (for which there is some support in the cases) is that mistake can be a ground of restitution for services.

1363:

Where one person pays money to another for a consideration which wholly fails, he or she may be entitled to restitution on the ground of

3696: 2535: 1943: 1676: 833: 325:

The categories of defences are also controversial: "change of position" is a general defence, although the law recognises estoppel, the

5522: 5024: 4186: 3981: 3941: 1702: 1114: 721: 2771: 1301: 5059: 4398: 3681: 1932: 1495: 918: 4495: 2543: 2434: 3250: 2901: 56:. Its precise scope remains a matter of controversy. Beyond quasi-contract, it is sometimes said to encompass the law relating to 4222: 3043: 2798: 2305: 2078: 2066: 1339: 1009: 4335: 1744: 2958: 2291: 2042: 1790: 1314: 297:

The principles of enrichment and expense are more stable in cases of transfers of goods or money, but contested in cases where

5312: 4343: 4059:

Academic writers have sought to expand the explanatory power of 'unjust enrichment'. They have suggested that the doctrine of

3237: 1033: 4507:

In circumstances where one party is claiming recovery of the benefits the other party has unjustly obtained ("restitution"),

3552: 3342: 3081:

Legal compulsion is a proposed ground of restitution. It is said to explain the law relating to recoupment and contribution.

3039: 2558: 2210: 1394:

sense, consideration refers to the failure of a legal or factual state of affairs which has failed to materialise or subsist.

485: 4981:

Namely, an action for money had and received (for money), a quantum meruit (for services), or a quantum valebat (for goods).

4622: 2725: 1411:

Where, properly construed, the benefit received by the defendant did not form part of the bargained-for counter-performance;

4412: 3114:

Whether such claims are capable of being rationalised on the ground of unjust enrichment remains a controversial question.

1387:

and most commonly encountered sense, consideration refers to the failure of the condition on which a benefit was conferred.

1222: 997:

enrichment. This means that a claimant must plead by reference to the various factors that the law recognises as 'unjust'.

202: 4601: 4419: 3136: 2344: 2198: 1770: 732: 534: 4483:

Another available defence is ministerial receipt, i.e. the recipient defendant receives the assets as agent for another.

4391: 1979: 4836: 4745: 4369: 4111: 4009: 3825: 3726: 3526: 3274: 2833: 2593: 2406: 2238: 1826: 1488: 1376: 818: 249: 224: 114: 3631: 2282: 4876: 4290: 4104: 3877: 3811: 3759: 2521: 2394: 2266: 1084:; whether a claim is for a personal or proprietary remedy; and whether the claim is brought under national or EU law. 960: 903: 780: 4298: 3006: 1277: 4677: 4440: 4384: 3017: 5858: 4695: 4376: 3732: 3668: 3587: 2252: 2188: 1774: 1465: 445:

The precise status of this analytic framework and its underpinning concept of unjust enrichment is controversial.

76: 61: 46: 5720:

See, e.g., Jonathan Hilliard, 'A Case for the Abolition of Legal Compulsion as a Ground of Restitution' (2002) 61

4608: 3296: 712:, Mr Exall left his carriage on Mr Partridge's property for repair. Partridge's landlord later seized Partridge's 232:

was instrumental in promoting the autonomy of unjust enrichment within the law of obligations in his seminal work

5863: 4171: 4023: 3915: 3664: 3653: 3642: 3545: 3519: 3508: 3335: 3307: 3028: 2794: 2486: 2038: 2014: 1575: 1353: 677: 478: 315:

mistake, duress, undue influence and failure of consideration. The unjust factor approach contrasts with certain

2971: 5680: 5644: 5054: 5033: 4845: 4194: 3953: 3318: 3129: 2337: 1364: 1102: 316: 4615: 2497: 1211: 747:

The enrichment must have come at the 'expense' of the claimant. There are two particularly difficult issues:

5741: 5684: 5289: 5103: 5037: 5010:

The statement is wholly endorsed by the current editors of Goff & Jones: Mitchell, Mitchell, Watterson,

2826: 2586: 1819: 691: 686: 558: 193: 4671: 1255: 1156: 236:

Academic writing continues to be heavily cited by the highest courts, particularly the more recent work of

155:(that is, a claim for reasonable remuneration for services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant); and 5071:

so that a £250k payment to a former chief executive could not be recovered as being irrationally overpaid.

4319: 4155: 4038: 3891: 3752: 3692:

so that a £250k payment to a former chief executive could not be recovered as being irrationally overpaid.

1430: 773: 197: 143: 65: 5647:

635 (strong emphasis by the High Court of Australia on the need for a request in a quantum meruit claim).

4936:

On this point, see generally Peter Birks, 'Property and Unjust Enrichment: Categorical Truths' NZLR 623.

4524: 4248: 3160: 2295: 1956: 458:

in a modern system of law. Unjust enrichment has been a key battleground for the so-called 'fusion wars'.

4725: 3576: 3204: 2809: 2662: 2650: 1566: 1233: 433:'unjust factor' was mistake: the company had conferred the benefit whilst labouring under the incorrect 215: 4545: 4531: 4433: 3285: 2947: 2784: 2003: 1872: 1244: 4229: 3995: 3620: 3215: 3182: 2760: 2628: 1200: 5853: 5177: 5145: 4710: 4664: 4643: 4587: 4261: 3429: 1921: 1730: 1189: 1167: 189: 30: 4657: 4269: 3598: 3193: 2639: 1017: 4964: 4464: 4132: 3853: 1861: 1533: 1266: 948: 933: 591: 4594: 3263: 4690: 4629: 4580: 4362: 3674: 3103: 2936: 2617: 1455: 1178: 3609: 1441:(goods). It is tolerably clear that failure of consideration can now apply to non-money claims. 161:(that is, a claim for the reasonable value of goods provided by the plaintiff to the defendant). 5241:(3rd ed, 2015) 118; McInnes, 'At the Plaintiff's Expense': Quantifying Restitutionary Relief' 5775: 4994: 4700: 4282: 4178: 3927: 3702: 3366: 3099: 3053: 2857: 2749: 1637: 1547: 708: 695: 621: 509: 365: 181: 42: 38: 4905: 1795:

A benefit conferred upon another whilst labouring under a qualifying mistake gives rise to a

5814: 4901: 4705: 4517: 4056:

liability: the claimant has no proprietary interest in any specific asset of the defendant.

3378: 1327: 434: 139:. From this action came the 'common money counts'. Of present relevance are the following: 34: 5737: 5676: 5640: 5285: 5099: 1666: 1622: 865: 5214: 5029: 4090: 3783: 3496: 2914: 2528: 2507: 2368: 2133: 1756: 1647: 1519: 5119: 5064: 3843: 1760: 1471:

Where a contract is rescinded due to a vitiating factor (e.g., mistake; undue influence);

938: 207: 3685: 923: 5193: 5081: 4735: 4072: 3999: 3985: 3881: 3787: 3402: 3092:

action known as an action for money paid, laid out and expended to the defendant's use.

3089: 2242: 2109: 1850: 1461:

Where a contract is unenforceable for want of compliance with the relevant formalities;

673: 427: 237: 167: 132: 53: 3815: 3486: 2228: 2214: 1734: 1551: 1523: 838: 5847: 4636: 4027: 3390: 2224: 1561: 713: 352: 298: 5381: 4969: 4841: 4805: 908: 823: 727: 112:. Its existence as a separate body of law was only explicitly recognised in 1991 in 4740: 4077: 4013: 3931: 3829: 3406: 3107: 2891: 2875: 2410: 2270: 2256: 2145: 1537: 1417:

Where the claimant has a legal right to reject the benefit and return it in specie;

1081: 455: 241: 49:

of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.

3971: 3957: 3458: 2675:

Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation

2165: 2149: 1708: 1680: 1607: 1593: 1579: 759:

Must there be correspondence between the claimant's loss and the defendant's gain?

662:

The principles relating to enrichment can be illustrated by the following cases.

52:

The modern law of unjust enrichment encompasses what was once known as the law of

1004:

English cases featuring general discussion on the question of injustice include:

4730: 4068: 4060: 375: 369: 344: 229: 109: 72: 57: 26: 2818: 463:

categories. Whether it is desirable to do so remains a controversial question.

4139: 3865: 3226: 2995: 2925: 2566: 2460: 716:

shop and the property inside, including Exall's carriage. In order to end the

4163: 3903: 2070: 1480: 1106: 984: 717: 327: 219: 1367:. Academic writing typically refers to this ground as "failure of basis". 736:, held that receiving sewerage services was an "incontrovertible benefit". 5364:

See Frederick Wilmot-Smith, 'Reconsidering "Total" Failure' (2013) 72(2)

4489:

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation

3327: 1429:

The ground of restitution known as total failure of developed within the

470: 765: 5817:

Litigation Review, published 15 March 2011, accessed 4 September 2020

5506:

UKHL 4; restitution for frustrated contracts are now governed by the

4277:

Mixing two claimants' money or money mixed with an innocent claimant

3537: 1420:

Where there has been a total failure in relation to a severable part.

290:

enrichment. Nevertheless, uncertainty pervades key areas of the law:

3121: 2714:

Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers' Federation

2329: 4818:

Mitchell, Charles; Mitchell, Paul & Watterson, Stephen (2011).

4326:

M Conaglen ‘Difficulties with Tracing Backwards’ (2011) 127 LQR 432

3744: 1811: 726: 108:

The law of unjust enrichment is among the most unsettled areas of

45:

deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make

2688:

B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd

3748: 3541: 3331: 3125: 3110:

claim. Some rights of contribution are now governed by statute.

2822: 2582: 2578: 2333: 2074: 1815: 1484: 1403:

The orthodox rule is that the failure of consideration must be

1110: 769: 474: 5607:(3rd ed, 2015) at 125-6; Mitchell, Mitchell, Watterson, eds., 1073:

Receipt under a valid contractual or statutory obligation; and

4567:

Commissioner of State Revenue v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd

1414:

Where the claimant has only received an "incidental" benefit;

4448:

National Westminster Bank plc v Somer International (UK) Ltd

3069:

Exploitation of the difficult circumstances of the claimant

879: 144:

an action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use

4216:

Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd

3072:

Illegality to protect vulnerable persons from exploitation

634:'I did not want that benefit at all; to me it is worthless 624:; and (iv) the discharge of a liability to a third party. 4857:

See, e.g., Theophilus, Paraphrase 3.27.3, 5; Gaius,

5275: 5273: 4717:

Prominent academics in the English law of restitution:

4539:

Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers Ltd

2984:

Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (Great Britain) Ltd

441:

Controversy over the status of the analytical framework

5625:

Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd (No 3)

5301:

FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital Partners AC 250

2570:, strict liability subject to defences as an exception 1290:

Dies v British and International Mining and Finance Co

1047:

to prove any wrongdoing on the part of the defendant.

196:. Of course, the law did not develop in a vacuum: the 5673:

Albion Insurance v Government Insurance Office of NSW

5434:

Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India Formula One Team

4406:

Niru Battery Manufacturing Co v Milestone Trading Ltd

3066:

Exploitation of the economic weakness of the claimant

3063:

Exploitation of the mental inadequacy of the claimant

2161:

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

5521:

This category of case is vividly illustrated by the

4237:

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC

4119:

Trustee of the Property of FC Jones and Sons v Jones

3719:

Banque Financiere de la Cite v. Parc (Battersea) Ltd

3710:

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC

2701:

Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpact Banking Corp

2551:

Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2)

752:

Must the enrichment come directly from the claimant?

630:

I do not value the benefit as much as you claim I do

612:

The first element of a claim is that a defendant is

5051:

Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd

2422:

Carl-Zeiss Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co (No 2)

1992:

Banque Financiere de la Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd

385:

Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd

255:

Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment

4991:Wasada Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (No 2) 2536:Carl-Zess Stiftung v Herbert Smith & Co (No 2) 1945:Nurdin & Peacock plc v DB Ramsden & Co Ltd 1375:"Consideration" in this context does not bear its 5800:Arnold v National Westminster Bank 1 Ch 63 at 67 5489:Mason & Carter's Restitution Law in Australia 5476:Mason & Carter's Restitution Law in Australia 4951:A Critical Introduction to the Law of Restitution 1026:Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v HMRC 4472:Dextra Bank & Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica 1909:Dextra Bank & Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica 1704:National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd 378:. The four steps were expressly endorsed by the 149:an action for money paid to the defendant's use; 5523:Local Authorities Swaps Litigation of the 1990s 5337:(3rd ed, 2011); Mitchell, Mitchell, Watterson, 4997: at (Campbell J) citing Mason and Carter, 4773:(3rd ed, 2011); Mitchell, Mitchell, Watterson, 2773:Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd 2503:Common law strict liability subject to defences 1303:Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd 343:defendant (or a third party, as in the case of 5659:(1799) 101 ER 1405; for a modern example, see 5259:Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham City Council 5060:Gibb v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust 4820:Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment 4797: 4795: 4793: 4791: 4789: 4787: 4399:Dextra Bank and Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica 3682:Gibb v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust 3418:Enderby Town FC Ltd v Football Association Ltd 1896:Lloyds Bank plc v Independent Insurance Co Ltd 1634:Fraser & Co v Denny Mott & Dickson Ltd 331:purchaser defence, and others as alternatives. 246:Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment 5838:Cases and Materials on the Law of Restitution 5763:Goff & Jones The Law of Unjust Enrichment 5429: 5427: 4496:Portman Building Society v Hamlyn Taylor Neck 4312:Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan 4202:Bishopsgate Investment Management Ltd v Homan 3760: 3553: 3343: 3137: 2834: 2594: 2345: 2086: 1827: 1496: 1122: 781: 486: 97:this enrichment at the claimant's expense is 8: 5487:Keith Mason, John Carter, Gregory Tolhurst, 5474:Keith Mason, John Carter, Gregory Tolhurst, 5178:"Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50" 5146:"Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50" 4831: 4829: 3741:Remedy: personal and proprietary restitution 3470:Schroeder Music Publishing Co Ltd v Macaulay 3252:China Pacific SA v Food Corporation of India 2903:National Commercial Bank (Jamaica) Ltd v Hew 1458:or repudiation by the claimant or defendant; 1064:Bona fide purchase for value without notice; 676:for £20,290 but was mistakenly also given a 2871:Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2) 2321:(1878) 3 App Cas 1218, on misrepresentation 2177:Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell 2027:Car and Universal Finance Co Ltd v Caldwell 1341:Pecuniary Restitution on Breach of Contract 1010:Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council 806:BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) 523:BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) 351:Despite this controversy, the statement by 5609:Goff & Jones' Law of Unjust Enrichment 5578:(1856) 1 H&N 210; but note cases like 5509:Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 5264:Kingstreet Investments Ltd v New Brunswick 5057:221, per Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, cf 4336:Space Investments Ltd v CIBC (Bahamas) Ltd 3767: 3753: 3745: 3560: 3546: 3538: 3454:Esso Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd 3350: 3336: 3328: 3144: 3130: 3122: 2887:R v Attorney General for England and Wales 2841: 2827: 2819: 2738:R v Attorney General for England and Wales 2601: 2587: 2579: 2448:Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Ltd (No 2) 2352: 2338: 2330: 2093: 2079: 2071: 1834: 1820: 1812: 1618:Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 1503: 1489: 1481: 1129: 1115: 1107: 788: 774: 766: 493: 479: 471: 166:contract. The various claims were termed ' 5811:Restitution Claims: Getting your own back 5339:Goff & Jones Law of Unjust Enrichment 5226:Investment Trust Companies v Commissioner 5164:An Introduction to the Law of Restitution 5012:Goff & Jones Law of Unjust Enrichment 4924:An Introduction to the Law of Restitution 4775:Goff & Jones Law of Unjust Enrichment 4148:Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Vaughan 2960:Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch 1661:McRae v Commonwealth Disposals Commission 1316:Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co 669:McDonald v Coys of Kensington (Sales) Ltd 547:McDonald v Coys of Kensington (Sales) Ltd 5789:The Principles of the Law of Restitution 5759:The Principles of the Law of Restitution 5592:Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms & Cooke 5313:Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v IRC 5239:The Principles of the Law of Restitution 4344:Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings plc 4098:Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck 3799:Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck 3239:Prager v Blatspiel Stamp and Heacock Ltd 2515:Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck 2474:Criterion Properties plc v Stratford LLC 2382:Banque Belge pour L'Etranger v Hambrouck 1968:Torts (interference with Goods) Act 1977 1034:Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v IRC 891:Banque Belge pour l’Etranger v Hambrouck 208:first major practitioner text in England 5836:A Burrows, J Edelman and E McKendrick, 5710:Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 5560:Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln City Council 4758: 3483:Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil Ltd 3441:Nordenfelt v Maxim, Nordenfelt Guns Ltd 3172:Falcke v Scottish Imperial Insurance Co 2554:, negligence also held to be sufficient 2053:Claims in respect of non-money benefits 1719:BP Exploration Co (Libya) v Hunt (No 2) 1425:Claims in respect of non-money benefits 234:Introduction to the Law of Restitution. 5341:(8th ed, 2011); Edelman and Degeling, 5281:Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd 4777:(8th ed, 2011); Edelman and Degeling, 4623:Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd 3968:Space Ltd v Canadian Imperial Bank Ltd 3840:Trustee of FC Jones & Sons v Jones 2726:Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co 1590:Maritime Fish Ltd v Ocean Trawlers Ltd 1146:Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd 861:Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd 581:Manchester Police v Wigan Athletic Ltd 104:there is no applicable bar or defence. 29:of obligations, along with the law of 5131:See generally, Edelman and Degeling, 4413:Barros Mattos Junior v Macdaniels Ltd 2280:Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 1604:Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson Ltd 1223:DO Ferguson & Associates v M Sohl 876:Kingstreet Invest Ltd v New Brunswick 203:Restatement of the Law of Restitution 7: 5331:Principles of the Law of Restitution 5096:Australia Financial Services v Hills 4767:Principles of the Law of Restitution 4721:Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley 4602:Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd 4560:Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham CC 4420:RBC Dominion Securities Inc v Dawson 2318:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 2122:Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co 849:Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham CC 68:substitutes of misapplied property. 5406:Stocznia Gdanska v Latvian Shipping 5025:Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v Paul 4392:Commerzbank AG v Gareth Price-Jones 3697:Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC 1980:County of Carelton v City of Ottawa 1677:Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham UDC 1454:Where a contract is discharged for 992:In circumstances which are 'unjust' 834:Trustee of FC Jones and Son v Jones 570:Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd 222:) who gave the leading judgment in 218:. It was Robert Goff (by this time 4949:(LexisNexis, 2005); Steve Hedley, 4302:EWHC 2771 (Ch), 1 Lloyd's Rep 198 4187:James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder 4010:Brazil v Durant International Corp 3982:Bishopsgate Investment Ltd v Homan 3942:James Roscoe (Bolton) Ltd v Winder 3727:Deutsche Morgan Grenfell plc v IRC 3688:- held an NHS trust had not acted 3275:Great Northern Railway v Swaffield 3060:The role of unconscionable conduct 1464:Where a contract is discharged by 14: 5833:(2nd Ed, Clarendon, Oxford, 2005) 5001:(LexisNexis, 2nd ed, 2008) 59-60. 3632:Commonwealth of Australia v Burns 1933:Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln CC 1745:Gamerco SA v ICM Fair Warning Ltd 1431:action for money had and received 919:Investment Trust Companies v HMRC 264:Restitution or unjust enrichment? 5761:(3rd ed, 2015); Mitchell et al, 4890:Commerzbank v Gareth Price-Jones 4291:Russell-Cooke Trust Co v Prentis 4223:Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter 3370:(1725) noted in (1893) 9 LQR 197 3044:Unconscionability in English law 2815:Undue influence and exploitation 2799:unconscionability in English law 2306:Misrepresentation in English law 2067:Misrepresentation in English law 1884:Barclays Bank Ltd v WJ Simms Ltd 924:[2012] EWHC 458 (Ch) 388:in the form of four questions: 335:Remedy: personal or proprietary? 244:, as well as modern editions of 64:, recoupment, and claims to the 23:English law of unjust enrichment 5753:See generally, Andrew Burrows, 5329:UKSC 26; see generally, Virgo, 4892:EWCA Civ 1663 at (Mummery LJ). 4299:Commerzbank AG v IMB Morgan plc 3007:The Port Caledonia and The Anna 2562:, unconscionability as the test 2292:Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 1791:Mistake in English contract law 1278:Taylor v Motability Finance Ltd 647:(ii) that the enrichment is an 16:Legal concept under English Law 5757:(3rd ed, 2011); Graham Virgo, 4696:The English Law of Restitution 4503:Counter restitution impossible 4441:Scottish Equitable plc v Derby 4385:Scottish Equitable plc v Derby 4294:EWHC 2227 (Ch), 2 All ER 478 3040:Undue influence in English law 3018:Green v Portsmouth Stadium Ltd 2559:BCCI (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele 2544:Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts 2435:Re Montagu's Settlement Trusts 2211:Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Mardon 1365:total failure of consideration 272:(restitution) rather than the 1: 5605:The Principles of Restitution 4972:on the meaning of enrichment. 3588:Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd 2199:Lambert v Co-op Insurance Ltd 973:English unjust enrichment law 733:Rowe v Vale of White Horse DC 654:(iii) that the defendant has 603:English unjust enrichment law 535:Rowe v Vale of White Horse DC 210:appeared in 1966, written by 5394:Rover International v Cannon 5205:(1799) 8 TR 308, 101 ER 1405 4999:Restitution Law in Australia 4837:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 4609:Re Cavalier Insurance Co Ltd 4370:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 4112:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 4052:enrichment only generates a 3826:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 3527:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 3297:In re Berkeley Applegate Ltd 2849:Undue influence and weakness 2407:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 2239:Royscot Trust Ltd v Rogerson 819:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 513:(1799) 8 TR 308, 101 ER 1405 225:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 115:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 5840:(2nd Ed, OUP, Oxford, 2007) 5697:Dering v Earl of Winchelsea 5237:See further: Graham Virgo, 5120:[2010] EWCA Civ 678 5065:[2010] EWCA Civ 678 4711:The English Law of Contract 4273:EWHC 1317 (Ch), WTLR 307 - 4105:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson 3878:Barlow Clowes Ltd v Vaughan 3812:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson 3643:Woolwich Equitable BS v IRC 2522:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson 2395:Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson 2267:Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson 961:Brown and Davis v Galbraith 939:[2014] EWCA Civ 360 904:FII Group Litigation v HMRC 5880: 5503:Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn 4945:See Edelman and Degeling, 4870:Reading v Attorney General 4746:Professor Charles Mitchell 4678:Minors' Contracts Act 1987 4377:Philip Collins Ltd v Davis 4360: 4036: 3733:Professor Charles Mitchell 3669:Ultra vires in English law 3662: 3517: 3316: 3049:Relational undue influence 3037: 2972:Earl of Ayelsford v Morris 2807: 2495: 2253:Saamco v York Montague Ltd 2189:Misrepresentation Act 1967 2064: 1788: 1775:frustration in English law 1691:John Walker & Sons Ltd 1100: 672:, Mr McDonald purchased a 437:that the payment was due. 363: 250:Professor Charles Mitchell 5621:Craven-Ellis v Canons Ltd 5333:(3rd ed, 2015); Burrows, 5325:Noted by Lord Toulson in 4802:Bank of Cyprus v Menelaou 4769:(3rd ed, 2015); Burrows, 4701:The English Law of Trusts 4347:EWCA Crim 1443, QB 376 - 4315:3 WLR 1270, 1274 and 1279 4143:Ch 465, 533, 534, and 539 4067:Academic writers such as 4064:High Court of Australia. 4024:English unjust enrichment 4020: 4006: 3992: 3978: 3964: 3950: 3938: 3924: 3912: 3900: 3888: 3874: 3862: 3850: 3836: 3822: 3808: 3794: 3780: 3665:Incapacity in English law 3654:English unjust enrichment 3650: 3639: 3628: 3617: 3606: 3595: 3584: 3573: 3520:Illegality in English law 3509:Illegality in English law 3505: 3493: 3479: 3465: 3449: 3437: 3427: 3413: 3399: 3387: 3375: 3363: 3308:English unjust enrichment 3304: 3293: 3282: 3271: 3260: 3247: 3234: 3223: 3212: 3201: 3190: 3179: 3168: 3157: 3029:English unjust enrichment 3025: 3014: 3003: 2992: 2979: 2968: 2955: 2944: 2933: 2922: 2911: 2898: 2882: 2866: 2854: 2795:English unjust enrichment 2792: 2781: 2768: 2757: 2746: 2733: 2722: 2709: 2696: 2683: 2670: 2659: 2647: 2636: 2625: 2614: 2487:English unjust enrichment 2483: 2469: 2457: 2443: 2431: 2417: 2403: 2391: 2377: 2365: 2303: 2289: 2277: 2263: 2249: 2235: 2221: 2207: 2195: 2186: 2172: 2156: 2142: 2130: 2118: 2106: 2101:Misrepresentation sources 2039:English unjust enrichment 2035: 2022: 2015:Whittington v Seale-Hayne 2011: 2000: 1987: 1976: 1964: 1953: 1940: 1929: 1918: 1904: 1891: 1880: 1869: 1858: 1847: 1767: 1753: 1741: 1727: 1715: 1699: 1687: 1673: 1656: 1644: 1630: 1614: 1600: 1586: 1576:Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd 1572: 1558: 1544: 1530: 1516: 1511:Sources for impossibility 1474:Where a contract is void 1354:English unjust enrichment 1350: 1335: 1324: 1311: 1298: 1285: 1274: 1263: 1252: 1241: 1230: 1219: 1208: 1197: 1186: 1175: 1164: 1153: 1142: 1137:Failure by breach sources 969: 957: 945: 930: 915: 900: 886: 872: 857: 845: 830: 815: 801: 743:At the expense of another 678:personalised number plate 599: 588: 577: 566: 555: 542: 531: 518: 506: 405:at the claimant's expense 305:At the claimant's expense 92:at the claimant's expense 5343:Equity in Commercial Law 5261:4 All ER 733 (England); 5133:Equity in Commercial Law 4995:[2003] NSWSC 987 4947:Equity in Commercial Law 4779:Equity in Commercial Law 4736:Professor Andrew Burrows 4616:Mohamed v Alaga & Co 4265:EWHC 1637 (Ch), Ch 281 4195:Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd 3954:Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd 3319:Necessity in English law 3106:) and is accordingly an 2498:Ignorance in English law 1371:Meaning of consideration 1212:Yeoman Credit Ltd v Apps 1103:Failure of consideration 1097:Failure of consideration 839:[1996] EWCA 1324 690:a company paid too much 649:incontrovertible benefit 347:to extinguished rights). 281:Continuing controversies 238:Professor Andrew Burrows 228:over two decades later. 5637:Lumbers v Cook Builders 4706:The English Law of Tort 4209:Proprietary restitution 4172:Re Tilley's Will Trusts 4159:(1880) 13 Ch D 696, 727 3916:Re Tilley's Will Trusts 2043:Mistakes in English law 692:advance corporation tax 687:Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC 640:(i) that the defendant 559:Sempra Metals Ltd v IRC 83:the defendant has been 5755:The Law of Restitution 5382:[2014] UKSC 26 5247:The Law of Restitution 5036:221 at 257 (Deane J), 4970:[2013] UKSC 50 4910:The Law of Restitution 4842:[1988] UKHL 12 4822:. Sweet & Maxwell. 4806:[2015] UKSC 66 4765:See generally, Virgo, 4741:Professor Graham Virgo 4726:Professor Gareth Jones 4691:The Law of Obligations 4330:Swollen assets theory 4039:Tracing in English law 3358:Sources for illegality 1399:The total failure rule 1029:UKSC 19, Bus LR 1033 909:[2012] UKSC 19 824:[1988] UKHL 12 737: 501:Sources for enrichment 410:(3) is the enrichment 403:(2) is the enrichment 242:Professor Graham Virgo 198:American Law Institute 5738:[2009] HCA 44 5722:Cambridge Law Journal 5708:For example, see the 5677:[1969] HCA 55 5641:[2008] HCA 27 5574:(1841) 9 M&W 54; 5491:(2nd ed, 2008) 312ff. 5478:(2nd ed, 2008) 311ff. 5366:Cambridge Law Journal 5286:[2001] HCA 68 5245:472; Andrew Burrows, 5243:Cambridge Law Journal 5162:Birks, Peter (1985). 5100:[2014] HCA 14 5014:(8th ed, 2011) at ff. 4922:Birks, Peter (1985). 4731:Professor Peter Birks 4672:R Leslie Ltd v Sheill 4084:Tracing at common law 2810:Duress in English law 2663:Pao On v Lau Yiu Long 2539:, dishonesty required 2125:(1878) 3 App Cas 1218 1667:[1951] HCA 79 1256:De Bernardy v Harding 1234:The Mikhail Lermontov 1157:Chillingworth v Esche 991: 983:For example, where a 866:[2001] HCA 68 730: 722:Court of King's Bench 376:Professor Peter Birks 230:Professor Peter Birks 137:indebitatus assumpsit 5459:Cobbe v Yeoman's Row 5249:(2011, 3rd ed) 64-5. 5122: at (Lawes LJ). 5085:(1841) 9 M&W 54. 5030:[1987] HCA 5 4320:Law Society v Haider 3430:Arbitration Act 1996 2372:(1826) 2 C&P 176 1731:The Superservant Two 1076:Lack of clean hands. 1070:Ministerial receipt; 185:(1760) 2 Burr 1005. 5734:Bofinger v Kingsway 5633:Marshall v Marshall 5629:Greenwood v Bennett 5611:(8th ed, 2011) at . 5463:Barnes v Eastenders 5419:Barnes v Eastenders 5378:Barnes v Eastenders 5345:(LexisNexis, 2005). 5327:Barnes v Eastenders 5228:EWHC 458 (Ch) at -. 5135:(LexisNexis, 2005). 4965:Benedetti v Sawiris 4781:(LexisNexis, 2005). 4525:Armstrong v Jackson 4509:counter restitution 4455:Bona Fide Purchaser 4249:Jones v De Marchant 4156:Re Hallett's Estate 4133:Sinclair v Brougham 3892:Re Hallett's Estate 3854:Sinclair v Brougham 3161:Nicholson v Chapman 1957:Greenwood v Bennett 1800:unjust enrichment. 1534:Courturier v Hastie 1377:contractual meaning 1067:Limitation periods; 1055:Change of position; 934:Relfo Ltd v Varsani 796:Sources for expense 592:Benedetti v Sawiris 392:(1) is a defendant 90:this enrichment is 5776:Foskett v McKeown 5335:Law of Restitution 5166:. pp. 109–11. 4771:Law of Restitution 4630:Tinsley v Milligan 4363:Change of position 4357:Change of position 4306:Backwards tracing 4047:Historically, the 3895:(1880) 13 Ch D 696 3675:Companies Act 2006 3577:Valentini v Canali 3568:Incapacity sources 3500:(1866) LR 1 Ex 213 3432:sections 68-69, 87 3205:Ambrose v Kerrison 3057:(1887) 36 Ch D 145 2937:Cresswell v Potter 2861:(1887) 36 Ch D 145 2651:The Atlantic Baron 2618:Barton v Armstrong 2113:(1766) 3 Burr 1905 738: 417:(4) are there any 360:Analytic framework 5859:Unjust enrichment 5831:Unjust Enrichment 5815:Allen & Overy 5699:(1787) 29 ER 1184 5657:Exall v Partridge 5550:(1802) 2 East 469 5536:Unjust Enrichment 5116:Gibbs v Maidstone 4546:Mahoney v Purnell 4532:Spence v Crawford 4434:Avon CC v Howlett 4252:(1916) 28 DLR 561 4179:Foskett v McKeown 4126:Tracing in equity 4073:Professor Burrows 4034: 4033: 3928:Foskett v McKeown 3703:compound interest 3660: 3659: 3515: 3514: 3382:(1775) 1 Cowp 341 3367:Everet v Williams 3314: 3313: 3286:Matheson v Smiley 3152:Necessity sources 3090:quasi-contractual 3054:Allcard v Skinner 3035: 3034: 2948:Boustany v Pigott 2858:Allcard v Skinner 2805: 2804: 2785:Norreys v Zeffert 2750:Williams v Bayley 2493: 2492: 2360:Ignorance sources 2312: 2311: 2202:2 Lloyd's Rep 485 2061:Misrepresentation 2049: 2048: 2004:Newbigging v Adam 1873:Morgan v Ashcroft 1781: 1780: 1548:Taylor v Caldwell 1360: 1359: 1245:Planche v Colburn 979: 978: 709:Exall v Partridge 696:compound interest 609: 608: 510:Exall v Partridge 366:Unjust enrichment 182:Moses v Macferlan 168:quasi-contractual 43:unjust enrichment 5871: 5864:Common law rules 5818: 5807: 5801: 5798: 5792: 5785: 5779: 5772: 5766: 5751: 5745: 5731: 5725: 5718: 5712: 5706: 5700: 5694: 5688: 5670: 5664: 5654: 5648: 5635:1 Qd R 173; cf. 5618: 5612: 5601: 5595: 5589: 5583: 5569: 5563: 5557: 5551: 5545: 5539: 5532: 5526: 5519: 5513: 5498: 5492: 5485: 5479: 5472: 5466: 5455: 5449: 5446:Rowland v Divall 5443: 5437: 5431: 5422: 5415: 5409: 5403: 5397: 5391: 5385: 5375: 5369: 5362: 5356: 5352: 5346: 5323: 5317: 5308: 5302: 5299: 5293: 5277: 5268: 5267:1 SCR 3 (Canada) 5256: 5250: 5235: 5229: 5223: 5217: 5215:EWHC (Admin) 388 5212: 5206: 5203: 5197: 5191: 5185: 5184: 5182: 5174: 5168: 5167: 5159: 5153: 5152: 5150: 5142: 5136: 5129: 5123: 5113: 5107: 5092: 5086: 5078: 5072: 5047: 5041: 5021: 5015: 5008: 5002: 4988: 4982: 4979: 4973: 4960: 4954: 4943: 4937: 4934: 4928: 4927: 4919: 4913: 4899: 4893: 4886: 4880: 4872:AC 507 at 513-4 4867: 4861: 4855: 4849: 4833: 4824: 4823: 4815: 4809: 4799: 4782: 4763: 4518:Clarke v Dickson 4323:EWHC 2486 (Ch) - 4286:(1816) 1 Mer 529 4230:Boscawen v Bajwa 3996:Boscawen v Bajwa 3800: 3769: 3762: 3755: 3746: 3621:Brougham v Dwyer 3562: 3555: 3548: 3539: 3471: 3455: 3419: 3379:Holman v Johnson 3352: 3345: 3338: 3329: 3253: 3240: 3216:Bradshaw v Beard 3183:Jenkins v Tucker 3146: 3139: 3132: 3123: 3077:Legal compulsion 2985: 2961: 2904: 2888: 2872: 2843: 2836: 2829: 2820: 2774: 2761:Silsbee v Webber 2739: 2715: 2702: 2689: 2676: 2629:Astley v Reyonds 2603: 2596: 2589: 2580: 2475: 2449: 2423: 2383: 2354: 2347: 2340: 2331: 2178: 2162: 2137:(1881) 20 Ch D 1 2095: 2088: 2081: 2072: 2028: 1993: 1969: 1946: 1910: 1897: 1836: 1829: 1822: 1813: 1705: 1662: 1619: 1505: 1498: 1491: 1482: 1342: 1328:Sumpter v Hedges 1317: 1304: 1291: 1201:Rowland v Divall 1131: 1124: 1117: 1108: 892: 807: 790: 783: 776: 767: 548: 524: 495: 488: 481: 472: 435:tacit assumption 312:Unjust' factors. 248:, now edited by 5879: 5878: 5874: 5873: 5872: 5870: 5869: 5868: 5844: 5843: 5826: 5821: 5808: 5804: 5799: 5795: 5791:(3rd ed, 2015). 5786: 5782: 5773: 5769: 5765:(8th ed, 2011). 5752: 5748: 5732: 5728: 5719: 5715: 5707: 5703: 5695: 5691: 5671: 5667: 5655: 5651: 5619: 5615: 5602: 5598: 5590: 5586: 5580:Larner v London 5570: 5566: 5558: 5554: 5548:Bilbie v Lumley 5546: 5542: 5538:(2nd ed, 2005). 5533: 5529: 5520: 5516: 5499: 5495: 5486: 5482: 5473: 5469: 5456: 5452: 5444: 5440: 5432: 5425: 5416: 5412: 5404: 5400: 5392: 5388: 5376: 5372: 5363: 5359: 5353: 5349: 5324: 5320: 5310:See, e.g., See 5309: 5305: 5300: 5296: 5278: 5271: 5257: 5253: 5236: 5232: 5224: 5220: 5213: 5209: 5204: 5200: 5192: 5188: 5180: 5176: 5175: 5171: 5161: 5160: 5156: 5148: 5144: 5143: 5139: 5130: 5126: 5114: 5110: 5093: 5089: 5079: 5075: 5048: 5044: 5022: 5018: 5009: 5005: 4989: 4985: 4980: 4976: 4961: 4957: 4953:(1st ed, 2001). 4944: 4940: 4935: 4931: 4921: 4920: 4916: 4900: 4896: 4887: 4883: 4868: 4864: 4856: 4852: 4834: 4827: 4817: 4816: 4812: 4800: 4785: 4764: 4760: 4756: 4687: 4665:Stocks v Wilson 4653: 4644:Nelson v Nelson 4588:Smith v Bromley 4576: 4555: 4505: 4481: 4457: 4429: 4365: 4359: 4354: 4262:Shalson v Russo 4182:1 AC 102, 127-8 4091:Taylor v Plumer 4078:Professor Virgo 4069:Professor Birks 4041: 4035: 4030: 4016: 4002: 3988: 3974: 3960: 3946: 3934: 3920: 3908: 3896: 3884: 3870: 3858: 3846: 3832: 3818: 3804: 3798: 3790: 3784:Taylor v Plumer 3776: 3775:Tracing sources 3773: 3743: 3671: 3663:Main articles: 3661: 3656: 3646: 3635: 3624: 3613: 3610:Hart v O'Connor 3602: 3591: 3580: 3569: 3566: 3536: 3522: 3516: 3511: 3501: 3497:Pearce v Brooks 3489: 3475: 3469: 3461: 3453: 3445: 3433: 3423: 3417: 3409: 3395: 3383: 3371: 3359: 3356: 3326: 3321: 3315: 3310: 3300: 3289: 3278: 3267: 3256: 3251: 3243: 3238: 3230: 3219: 3208: 3197: 3186: 3175: 3164: 3153: 3150: 3120: 3079: 3046: 3038:Main articles: 3036: 3031: 3021: 3010: 2999: 2988: 2983: 2975: 2964: 2959: 2951: 2940: 2929: 2918: 2915:Louth v Diprose 2907: 2902: 2894: 2886: 2878: 2870: 2862: 2850: 2847: 2817: 2812: 2806: 2801: 2788: 2777: 2772: 2764: 2753: 2742: 2737: 2729: 2718: 2713: 2705: 2700: 2692: 2687: 2679: 2674: 2666: 2655: 2643: 2632: 2621: 2610: 2607: 2577: 2529:knowing receipt 2508:Holiday v Sigil 2500: 2494: 2489: 2479: 2473: 2465: 2453: 2447: 2439: 2427: 2421: 2413: 2399: 2387: 2381: 2373: 2369:Holiday v Sigil 2361: 2358: 2328: 2313: 2308: 2299: 2285: 2273: 2259: 2245: 2231: 2217: 2203: 2191: 2182: 2176: 2168: 2160: 2152: 2138: 2134:Redgrave v Hurd 2126: 2114: 2102: 2099: 2069: 2063: 2055: 2050: 2045: 2031: 2026: 2018: 2007: 1996: 1991: 1983: 1972: 1967: 1960: 1949: 1944: 1936: 1925: 1922:Bilbie v Lumley 1914: 1908: 1900: 1895: 1887: 1876: 1865: 1854: 1843: 1842:Mistake sources 1840: 1806: 1793: 1787: 1782: 1777: 1763: 1757:The Great Peace 1749: 1737: 1723: 1711: 1703: 1695: 1683: 1669: 1660: 1652: 1648:Solle v Butcher 1640: 1626: 1617: 1610: 1596: 1582: 1568: 1554: 1540: 1526: 1520:Paradine v Jane 1512: 1509: 1447: 1439:quantum valebat 1427: 1401: 1373: 1361: 1356: 1346: 1340: 1331: 1320: 1315: 1307: 1302: 1294: 1289: 1281: 1270: 1259: 1248: 1237: 1226: 1215: 1204: 1193: 1190:Bush v Canfield 1182: 1171: 1168:Giles v Edwards 1160: 1149: 1138: 1135: 1105: 1099: 1090: 1044: 994: 980: 975: 965: 953: 941: 926: 911: 896: 890: 882: 868: 853: 841: 826: 811: 805: 797: 794: 745: 656:freely accepted 644:the benefit; or 610: 605: 595: 584: 573: 562: 551: 546: 538: 527: 522: 514: 502: 499: 469: 443: 372: 362: 283: 266: 159:quantum valebat 129: 124: 25:is part of the 17: 12: 11: 5: 5877: 5875: 5867: 5866: 5861: 5856: 5846: 5845: 5842: 5841: 5834: 5825: 5822: 5820: 5819: 5809:Farnhill, R., 5802: 5793: 5787:Graham Virgo, 5780: 5767: 5746: 5726: 5713: 5701: 5689: 5665: 5649: 5613: 5603:Graham Virgo, 5596: 5584: 5572:Kelly v Solari 5564: 5552: 5540: 5527: 5514: 5493: 5480: 5467: 5450: 5438: 5436:EWHC 2373 (QB) 5423: 5410: 5398: 5386: 5370: 5357: 5347: 5318: 5303: 5294: 5269: 5251: 5230: 5218: 5207: 5198: 5186: 5169: 5154: 5137: 5124: 5108: 5087: 5082:Kelly v Solari 5073: 5042: 5016: 5003: 4983: 4974: 4955: 4938: 4929: 4914: 4894: 4881: 4862: 4850: 4825: 4810: 4783: 4757: 4755: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4743: 4738: 4733: 4728: 4723: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4708: 4703: 4698: 4686: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4675: 4668: 4661: 4658:Cowern v Nield 4652: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4640: 4633: 4626: 4619: 4612: 4605: 4598: 4591: 4584: 4575: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4563: 4554: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4542: 4535: 4528: 4521: 4504: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4492: 4480: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4468: 4456: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4444: 4437: 4428: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4416: 4409: 4402: 4395: 4388: 4381: 4373: 4361:Main article: 4358: 4355: 4353: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4340: 4328: 4327: 4324: 4316: 4304: 4303: 4295: 4287: 4283:Clayton's case 4275: 4274: 4270:Turner v Jacob 4266: 4254: 4253: 4241: 4240: 4233: 4226: 4219: 4211: 4210: 4206: 4205: 4198: 4191: 4183: 4175: 4168: 4160: 4152: 4144: 4136: 4128: 4127: 4123: 4122: 4115: 4108: 4101: 4094: 4086: 4085: 4032: 4031: 4021: 4018: 4017: 4007: 4004: 4003: 3993: 3990: 3989: 3979: 3976: 3975: 3965: 3962: 3961: 3951: 3948: 3947: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3913: 3910: 3909: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3889: 3886: 3885: 3875: 3872: 3871: 3863: 3860: 3859: 3851: 3848: 3847: 3837: 3834: 3833: 3823: 3820: 3819: 3809: 3806: 3805: 3795: 3792: 3791: 3781: 3778: 3777: 3774: 3772: 3771: 3764: 3757: 3749: 3742: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3723: 3715: 3706: 3693: 3678: 3658: 3657: 3651: 3648: 3647: 3640: 3637: 3636: 3629: 3626: 3625: 3618: 3615: 3614: 3607: 3604: 3603: 3599:Pearce v Brain 3596: 3593: 3592: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3574: 3571: 3570: 3567: 3565: 3564: 3557: 3550: 3542: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3518:Main article: 3513: 3512: 3506: 3503: 3502: 3494: 3491: 3490: 3480: 3477: 3476: 3466: 3463: 3462: 3450: 3447: 3446: 3438: 3435: 3434: 3428: 3425: 3424: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3403:Hounga v Allen 3400: 3397: 3396: 3388: 3385: 3384: 3376: 3373: 3372: 3364: 3361: 3360: 3357: 3355: 3354: 3347: 3340: 3332: 3325: 3322: 3317:Main article: 3312: 3311: 3305: 3302: 3301: 3294: 3291: 3290: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3248: 3245: 3244: 3235: 3232: 3231: 3224: 3221: 3220: 3213: 3210: 3209: 3202: 3199: 3198: 3194:Rogers v Price 3191: 3188: 3187: 3180: 3177: 3176: 3169: 3166: 3165: 3158: 3155: 3154: 3151: 3149: 3148: 3141: 3134: 3126: 3119: 3116: 3112: 3111: 3093: 3078: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3070: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3050: 3033: 3032: 3026: 3023: 3022: 3015: 3012: 3011: 3004: 3001: 3000: 2993: 2990: 2989: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2969: 2966: 2965: 2956: 2953: 2952: 2945: 2942: 2941: 2934: 2931: 2930: 2923: 2920: 2919: 2912: 2909: 2908: 2899: 2896: 2895: 2883: 2880: 2879: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2855: 2852: 2851: 2848: 2846: 2845: 2838: 2831: 2823: 2816: 2813: 2808:Main article: 2803: 2802: 2793: 2790: 2789: 2782: 2779: 2778: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2758: 2755: 2754: 2747: 2744: 2743: 2734: 2731: 2730: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2710: 2707: 2706: 2697: 2694: 2693: 2684: 2681: 2680: 2671: 2668: 2667: 2660: 2657: 2656: 2648: 2645: 2644: 2640:Skeate v Beale 2637: 2634: 2633: 2626: 2623: 2622: 2615: 2612: 2611: 2608: 2606: 2605: 2598: 2591: 2583: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2563: 2555: 2547: 2540: 2532: 2525: 2518: 2511: 2504: 2496:Main article: 2491: 2490: 2484: 2481: 2480: 2470: 2467: 2466: 2458: 2455: 2454: 2444: 2441: 2440: 2432: 2429: 2428: 2418: 2415: 2414: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2366: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2356: 2349: 2342: 2334: 2327: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2310: 2309: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2290: 2287: 2286: 2278: 2275: 2274: 2264: 2261: 2260: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2236: 2233: 2232: 2222: 2219: 2218: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2187: 2184: 2183: 2173: 2170: 2169: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2143: 2140: 2139: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2119: 2116: 2115: 2110:Carter v Boehm 2107: 2104: 2103: 2100: 2098: 2097: 2090: 2083: 2075: 2065:Main article: 2062: 2059: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2046: 2036: 2033: 2032: 2023: 2020: 2019: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1965: 1962: 1961: 1954: 1951: 1950: 1941: 1938: 1937: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1905: 1902: 1901: 1892: 1889: 1888: 1881: 1878: 1877: 1870: 1867: 1866: 1859: 1856: 1855: 1851:Kelly v Solari 1848: 1845: 1844: 1841: 1839: 1838: 1831: 1824: 1816: 1805: 1802: 1789:Main article: 1786: 1783: 1779: 1778: 1771:common mistake 1768: 1765: 1764: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1728: 1725: 1724: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1700: 1697: 1696: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1674: 1671: 1670: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1645: 1642: 1641: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1587: 1584: 1583: 1573: 1570: 1569: 1559: 1556: 1555: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1531: 1528: 1527: 1517: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1508: 1507: 1500: 1493: 1485: 1479: 1478: 1472: 1469: 1462: 1459: 1446: 1443: 1437:(services) or 1435:quantum meruit 1426: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1388: 1372: 1369: 1358: 1357: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1312: 1309: 1308: 1299: 1296: 1295: 1286: 1283: 1282: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1264: 1261: 1260: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1209: 1206: 1205: 1198: 1195: 1194: 1187: 1184: 1183: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1165: 1162: 1161: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1134: 1133: 1126: 1119: 1111: 1101:Main article: 1098: 1095: 1089: 1088:Unjust factors 1086: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1062: 1059: 1056: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1030: 1022: 1018:Woolwich v IRC 1014: 993: 990: 977: 976: 970: 967: 966: 958: 955: 954: 946: 943: 942: 931: 928: 927: 916: 913: 912: 901: 898: 897: 887: 884: 883: 873: 870: 869: 858: 855: 854: 846: 843: 842: 831: 828: 827: 816: 813: 812: 802: 799: 798: 795: 793: 792: 785: 778: 770: 764: 763: 756: 744: 741: 740: 739: 704: 682: 660: 659: 652: 645: 607: 606: 600: 597: 596: 589: 586: 585: 578: 575: 574: 567: 564: 563: 556: 553: 552: 543: 540: 539: 532: 529: 528: 519: 516: 515: 507: 504: 503: 500: 498: 497: 490: 483: 475: 468: 465: 460: 459: 451: 442: 439: 428:Kelly v Solari 423: 422: 415: 408: 401: 380:House of Lords 361: 358: 349: 348: 332: 320: 308: 302: 282: 279: 265: 262: 172:House of Lords 163: 162: 156: 153:quantum meruit 150: 147: 133:form of action 128: 125: 123: 120: 106: 105: 102: 95: 88: 54:quasi-contract 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5876: 5865: 5862: 5860: 5857: 5855: 5852: 5851: 5849: 5839: 5835: 5832: 5828: 5827: 5823: 5816: 5812: 5806: 5803: 5797: 5794: 5790: 5784: 5781: 5777: 5771: 5768: 5764: 5760: 5756: 5750: 5747: 5743: 5739: 5735: 5730: 5727: 5723: 5717: 5714: 5711: 5705: 5702: 5698: 5693: 5690: 5686: 5682: 5679:, (1969) 121 5678: 5674: 5669: 5666: 5662: 5658: 5653: 5650: 5646: 5643:, (2008) 232 5642: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5622: 5617: 5614: 5610: 5606: 5600: 5597: 5593: 5588: 5585: 5581: 5577: 5576:Aiken v Short 5573: 5568: 5565: 5561: 5556: 5553: 5549: 5544: 5541: 5537: 5531: 5528: 5524: 5518: 5515: 5512: 5510: 5505: 5504: 5497: 5494: 5490: 5484: 5481: 5477: 5471: 5468: 5464: 5460: 5454: 5451: 5447: 5442: 5439: 5435: 5430: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5414: 5411: 5407: 5402: 5399: 5395: 5390: 5387: 5383: 5379: 5374: 5371: 5367: 5361: 5358: 5351: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5336: 5332: 5328: 5322: 5319: 5315: 5314: 5307: 5304: 5298: 5295: 5291: 5287: 5283: 5282: 5276: 5274: 5270: 5266: 5265: 5260: 5255: 5252: 5248: 5244: 5240: 5234: 5231: 5227: 5222: 5219: 5216: 5211: 5208: 5202: 5199: 5195: 5190: 5187: 5179: 5173: 5170: 5165: 5158: 5155: 5147: 5141: 5138: 5134: 5128: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5112: 5109: 5105: 5101: 5097: 5091: 5088: 5084: 5083: 5077: 5074: 5070: 5066: 5062: 5061: 5056: 5053: 5052: 5046: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5032:, (1987) 162 5031: 5027: 5026: 5020: 5017: 5013: 5007: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4992: 4987: 4984: 4978: 4975: 4971: 4967: 4966: 4962:For example, 4959: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4942: 4939: 4933: 4930: 4925: 4918: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4898: 4895: 4891: 4885: 4882: 4878: 4875: 4871: 4866: 4863: 4860: 4854: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4838: 4832: 4830: 4826: 4821: 4814: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4798: 4796: 4794: 4792: 4790: 4788: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4768: 4762: 4759: 4753: 4747: 4744: 4742: 4739: 4737: 4734: 4732: 4729: 4727: 4724: 4722: 4719: 4718: 4716: 4712: 4709: 4707: 4704: 4702: 4699: 4697: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4689: 4688: 4684: 4679: 4676: 4674: 4673: 4669: 4667: 4666: 4662: 4660: 4659: 4655: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4645: 4641: 4639: 4638: 4637:Tribe v Tribe 4634: 4632: 4631: 4627: 4625: 4624: 4620: 4618: 4617: 4613: 4611: 4610: 4606: 4604: 4603: 4599: 4597: 4596: 4592: 4590: 4589: 4585: 4583: 4582: 4578: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4568: 4564: 4562: 4561: 4557: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4547: 4543: 4541: 4540: 4536: 4534: 4533: 4529: 4527: 4526: 4522: 4520: 4519: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4510: 4502: 4498: 4497: 4493: 4491: 4490: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4478: 4474: 4473: 4469: 4467: 4466: 4465:Miller v Race 4462: 4461: 4460: 4454: 4450: 4449: 4445: 4443: 4442: 4438: 4436: 4435: 4431: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4421: 4417: 4415: 4414: 4410: 4408: 4407: 4403: 4401: 4400: 4396: 4394: 4393: 4389: 4387: 4386: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4374: 4372: 4371: 4367: 4366: 4364: 4356: 4351: 4346: 4345: 4341: 4338: 4337: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4325: 4322: 4321: 4317: 4314: 4313: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4301: 4300: 4296: 4293: 4292: 4288: 4285: 4284: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4272: 4271: 4267: 4264: 4263: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4251: 4250: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4239: 4238: 4234: 4232: 4231: 4227: 4225: 4224: 4220: 4218: 4217: 4213: 4212: 4208: 4207: 4204: 4203: 4199: 4197: 4196: 4192: 4189: 4188: 4184: 4181: 4180: 4176: 4174: 4173: 4169: 4167:2 Ch 356, 360 4166: 4165: 4161: 4158: 4157: 4153: 4150: 4149: 4145: 4142: 4141: 4137: 4135: 4134: 4130: 4129: 4125: 4124: 4121: 4120: 4116: 4114: 4113: 4109: 4107: 4106: 4102: 4100: 4099: 4095: 4093: 4092: 4088: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4079: 4074: 4070: 4065: 4062: 4057: 4055: 4050: 4045: 4040: 4029: 4025: 4019: 4015: 4012: 4011: 4005: 4001: 3998: 3997: 3991: 3987: 3984: 3983: 3977: 3973: 3970: 3969: 3963: 3959: 3956: 3955: 3949: 3944: 3943: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3929: 3923: 3918: 3917: 3911: 3906: 3905: 3899: 3894: 3893: 3887: 3883: 3880: 3879: 3873: 3868: 3867: 3861: 3856: 3855: 3849: 3845: 3844:EWCA Civ 1324 3842: 3841: 3835: 3831: 3828: 3827: 3821: 3817: 3814: 3813: 3807: 3802: 3801: 3793: 3789: 3786: 3785: 3779: 3770: 3765: 3763: 3758: 3756: 3751: 3750: 3747: 3740: 3734: 3729: 3728: 3724: 3721: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3711: 3707: 3704: 3699: 3698: 3694: 3691: 3687: 3684: 3683: 3679: 3676: 3673: 3672: 3670: 3666: 3655: 3649: 3645: 3644: 3638: 3634: 3633: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3616: 3612: 3611: 3605: 3601: 3600: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3583: 3579: 3578: 3572: 3563: 3558: 3556: 3551: 3549: 3544: 3543: 3540: 3533: 3529: 3528: 3524: 3523: 3521: 3510: 3504: 3499: 3498: 3492: 3488: 3485: 3484: 3478: 3473: 3472: 3464: 3460: 3457: 3456: 3448: 3443: 3442: 3436: 3431: 3426: 3421: 3420: 3412: 3408: 3405: 3404: 3398: 3393: 3392: 3391:Patel v Mirza 3386: 3381: 3380: 3374: 3369: 3368: 3362: 3353: 3348: 3346: 3341: 3339: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3323: 3320: 3309: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3281: 3277: 3276: 3270: 3266: 3265: 3259: 3255: 3254: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3233: 3229: 3228: 3222: 3218: 3217: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3200: 3196: 3195: 3189: 3185: 3184: 3178: 3174: 3173: 3167: 3163: 3162: 3156: 3147: 3142: 3140: 3135: 3133: 3128: 3127: 3124: 3117: 3115: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3094: 3091: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3076: 3071: 3068: 3065: 3062: 3059: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3048: 3047: 3045: 3041: 3030: 3024: 3020: 3019: 3013: 3009: 3008: 3002: 2998: 2997: 2991: 2987: 2986: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2967: 2963: 2962: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2932: 2928: 2927: 2921: 2917: 2916: 2910: 2906: 2905: 2897: 2893: 2890: 2889: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2873: 2865: 2860: 2859: 2853: 2844: 2839: 2837: 2832: 2830: 2825: 2824: 2821: 2814: 2811: 2800: 2796: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2780: 2776: 2775: 2767: 2763: 2762: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2745: 2741: 2740: 2732: 2728: 2727: 2721: 2717: 2716: 2708: 2704: 2703: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2658: 2653: 2652: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2635: 2631: 2630: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2613: 2604: 2599: 2597: 2592: 2590: 2585: 2584: 2581: 2574: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2561: 2560: 2556: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2546: 2545: 2541: 2538: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2524: 2523: 2519: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2510: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2501: 2499: 2488: 2482: 2477: 2476: 2468: 2463: 2462: 2456: 2451: 2450: 2442: 2437: 2436: 2430: 2425: 2424: 2416: 2412: 2409: 2408: 2402: 2397: 2396: 2390: 2385: 2384: 2376: 2371: 2370: 2364: 2355: 2350: 2348: 2343: 2341: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2325: 2320: 2319: 2315: 2314: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2293: 2288: 2284: 2281: 2276: 2272: 2269: 2268: 2262: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2248: 2244: 2241: 2240: 2234: 2230: 2227: 2226: 2225:East v Maurer 2220: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2194: 2190: 2185: 2180: 2179: 2171: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2147: 2141: 2136: 2135: 2129: 2124: 2123: 2117: 2112: 2111: 2105: 2096: 2091: 2089: 2084: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2073: 2068: 2060: 2058: 2052: 2044: 2040: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2010: 2006: 2005: 1999: 1995: 1994: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1975: 1971:ss 1, 3(7), 6 1970: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1952: 1948: 1947: 1939: 1935: 1934: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1917: 1912: 1911: 1903: 1899: 1898: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862:Aiken v Short 1857: 1853: 1852: 1846: 1837: 1832: 1830: 1825: 1823: 1818: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1803: 1801: 1798: 1792: 1784: 1776: 1772: 1766: 1762: 1761:EWCA Civ 1407 1759: 1758: 1752: 1747: 1746: 1740: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1706: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1663: 1655: 1650: 1649: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1629: 1624: 1620: 1613: 1609: 1606: 1605: 1599: 1595: 1592: 1591: 1585: 1581: 1578: 1577: 1571: 1567: 1564: 1563: 1562:Krell v Henry 1557: 1553: 1550: 1549: 1543: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1529: 1525: 1522: 1521: 1515: 1506: 1501: 1499: 1494: 1492: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1477: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1444: 1442: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1424: 1419: 1416: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1406: 1398: 1393: 1389: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1378: 1370: 1368: 1366: 1355: 1349: 1345:(1983) No 121 1344: 1343: 1334: 1330: 1329: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267:Boomer v Muir 1262: 1258: 1257: 1251: 1247: 1246: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1229: 1225: 1224: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1207: 1203: 1202: 1196: 1192: 1191: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1141: 1132: 1127: 1125: 1120: 1118: 1113: 1112: 1109: 1104: 1096: 1094: 1087: 1085: 1083: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1066: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1041: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1015: 1012: 1011: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1002: 998: 989: 986: 974: 968: 963: 962: 956: 951: 950: 949:Butler v Rice 944: 940: 936: 935: 929: 925: 921: 920: 914: 910: 906: 905: 899: 894: 893: 885: 881: 878: 877: 871: 867: 863: 862: 856: 851: 850: 844: 840: 836: 835: 829: 825: 821: 820: 814: 809: 808: 800: 791: 786: 784: 779: 777: 772: 771: 768: 760: 757: 753: 750: 749: 748: 742: 735: 734: 729: 723: 719: 715: 714:coachbuilding 711: 710: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 688: 683: 679: 675: 671: 670: 665: 664: 663: 657: 653: 650: 646: 643: 639: 638: 637: 635: 631: 625: 623: 617: 615: 604: 598: 594: 593: 587: 583: 582: 576: 572: 571: 565: 561: 560: 554: 550: 549: 541: 537: 536: 530: 526: 525: 517: 512: 511: 505: 496: 491: 489: 484: 482: 477: 476: 473: 466: 464: 457: 452: 448: 447: 446: 440: 438: 436: 431: 429: 420: 416: 413: 409: 406: 402: 399: 395: 391: 390: 389: 387: 386: 381: 377: 371: 367: 359: 357: 354: 353:Justice Deane 346: 341: 336: 333: 330: 329: 324: 321: 318: 313: 309: 306: 303: 300: 296: 293: 292: 291: 287: 280: 278: 275: 271: 263: 261: 260: 257: 256: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 226: 221: 217: 213: 209: 206:in 1937. The 205: 204: 199: 195: 191: 186: 184: 183: 176: 173: 169: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 141: 140: 138: 134: 126: 121: 119: 117: 116: 111: 103: 100: 96: 93: 89: 86: 82: 81: 80: 78: 74: 69: 67: 63: 59: 55: 50: 48: 44: 41:. The law of 40: 36: 32: 28: 24: 19: 5837: 5830: 5805: 5796: 5788: 5783: 5770: 5762: 5758: 5754: 5749: 5744:(Australia). 5733: 5729: 5721: 5716: 5709: 5704: 5696: 5692: 5687:(Australia). 5672: 5668: 5660: 5656: 5652: 5636: 5632: 5628: 5624: 5620: 5616: 5608: 5604: 5599: 5591: 5587: 5579: 5575: 5571: 5567: 5559: 5555: 5547: 5543: 5535: 5530: 5517: 5507: 5502: 5496: 5488: 5483: 5475: 5470: 5462: 5458: 5453: 5445: 5441: 5433: 5418: 5413: 5405: 5401: 5393: 5389: 5377: 5373: 5365: 5360: 5350: 5342: 5338: 5334: 5330: 5326: 5321: 5311: 5306: 5297: 5279: 5262: 5254: 5246: 5242: 5238: 5233: 5225: 5221: 5210: 5201: 5189: 5172: 5163: 5157: 5140: 5132: 5127: 5115: 5111: 5106:(Australia). 5095: 5090: 5080: 5076: 5068: 5058: 5049: 5045: 5040:(Australia). 5023: 5019: 5011: 5006: 4998: 4990: 4986: 4977: 4963: 4958: 4950: 4946: 4941: 4932: 4923: 4917: 4909: 4897: 4889: 4884: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4858: 4853: 4835: 4819: 4813: 4801: 4778: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4761: 4670: 4663: 4656: 4642: 4635: 4628: 4621: 4614: 4607: 4600: 4595:Smith v Cuff 4593: 4586: 4579: 4565: 4558: 4544: 4537: 4530: 4523: 4516: 4508: 4506: 4494: 4487: 4482: 4470: 4463: 4458: 4446: 4439: 4432: 4418: 4411: 4404: 4397: 4390: 4383: 4380:3 All ER 808 4375: 4368: 4342: 4334: 4329: 4318: 4310: 4305: 4297: 4289: 4281: 4276: 4268: 4260: 4255: 4247: 4242: 4235: 4228: 4221: 4214: 4200: 4193: 4185: 4177: 4170: 4162: 4154: 4146: 4138: 4131: 4117: 4110: 4103: 4096: 4089: 4066: 4058: 4053: 4048: 4046: 4042: 4008: 3994: 3980: 3966: 3952: 3940: 3926: 3914: 3902: 3890: 3876: 3864: 3852: 3838: 3824: 3810: 3796: 3782: 3725: 3717: 3708: 3695: 3689: 3686:EWCA Civ 678 3680: 3641: 3630: 3619: 3608: 3597: 3586: 3575: 3525: 3495: 3481: 3467: 3451: 3439: 3415: 3401: 3389: 3377: 3365: 3295: 3284: 3273: 3264:In re Rhodes 3262: 3249: 3236: 3225: 3214: 3203: 3192: 3181: 3170: 3159: 3113: 3096:Contribution 3095: 3085: 3080: 3052: 3016: 3005: 2994: 2981: 2970: 2957: 2946: 2935: 2924: 2913: 2900: 2884: 2868: 2856: 2783: 2770: 2759: 2748: 2735: 2724: 2711: 2698: 2685: 2672: 2661: 2649: 2638: 2627: 2616: 2609:Duress cases 2565: 2557: 2549: 2542: 2534: 2520: 2513: 2506: 2471: 2459: 2452:1 All ER 393 2445: 2433: 2419: 2405: 2393: 2379: 2367: 2316: 2296:SI 2008/1277 2265: 2251: 2237: 2223: 2209: 2197: 2174: 2158: 2146:Derry v Peek 2144: 2132: 2120: 2108: 2056: 2024: 2013: 2002: 1989: 1978: 1955: 1942: 1931: 1920: 1906: 1893: 1882: 1871: 1860: 1849: 1807: 1796: 1794: 1755: 1743: 1729: 1717: 1701: 1689: 1675: 1658: 1646: 1632: 1602: 1588: 1574: 1560: 1546: 1532: 1518: 1475: 1448: 1438: 1434: 1428: 1404: 1402: 1391: 1384: 1374: 1362: 1338: 1326: 1313: 1300: 1287: 1276: 1265: 1254: 1243: 1232: 1221: 1210: 1199: 1188: 1177: 1166: 1155: 1144: 1091: 1079: 1049: 1045: 1032: 1024: 1016: 1008: 1003: 999: 995: 981: 972: 959: 947: 932: 917: 902: 888: 874: 859: 852:4 All ER 733 847: 832: 817: 803: 758: 751: 746: 731: 707: 699: 685: 667: 661: 658:the benefit. 655: 648: 641: 633: 629: 626: 618: 613: 611: 602: 590: 579: 568: 557: 544: 533: 520: 508: 461: 444: 426: 424: 418: 411: 404: 397: 393: 383: 373: 350: 339: 334: 326: 322: 311: 304: 294: 288: 284: 273: 269: 267: 258: 254: 245: 233: 223: 216:Gareth Jones 201: 187: 180: 177: 164: 158: 152: 136: 130: 113: 107: 98: 91: 84: 70: 62:contribution 51: 22: 20: 18: 5854:English law 5661:Owen v Tate 5627:1 WLR 912; 5534:See Birks, 5292:(Australia) 5194:EWCA Civ 47 5069:ultra vires 4888:See, e.g., 4877:Lord Porter 4581:Oom v Bruce 4151:4 All ER 22 4061:subrogation 4049:indebitatus 4000:EWCA Civ 15 3986:EWCA Civ 33 3882:EWCA Civ 11 3788:EWHC KB J84 3690:ultra vires 3102:(or in the 3086:Recoupment. 2531:and dealing 2243:EWCA Civ 12 1797:prima facie 1466:frustration 1179:Hunt v Silk 1058:Passing on; 755:directness. 370:Restitution 345:subrogation 340:money value 295:Enrichment. 212:Robert Goff 110:English law 77:restitution 73:prima facie 58:subrogation 47:restitution 27:English law 5848:Categories 5824:References 5742:High Court 5685:High Court 5623:2 KB 403; 5290:High Court 5104:High Court 5038:High Court 4859:Institutes 4651:Incapacity 4574:Illegality 4553:Passing on 4339:1 WLR 1072 4243:Following 4140:Re Diplock 4037:See also: 3866:Re Diplock 3816:EWCA Civ 2 3534:Incapacity 3487:EWCA Civ 2 3474:1 WLR 1308 3324:Illegality 3227:The Goring 2996:The Medina 2926:Fry v Lane 2567:Re Diplock 2461:Re Diplock 2283:2005/29/EC 2229:EWCA Civ 6 2215:EWCA Civ 4 1804:Background 1735:EWCA Civ 6 1552:EWHC QB J1 1524:EWHC KB J5 1476:ab initio. 1337:Law Comm, 632:' or even 467:Enrichment 364:See also: 200:drafted a 122:Background 5829:P Birks, 5582:2 KB 683. 5461:UKHL 55; 5408:1 WLR 574 5396:1 WLR 912 5355:contract. 4164:Re Oatway 3904:Re Oatway 3118:Necessity 3108:equitable 3104:Exchequer 2326:Ignorance 1748:EWHC QB 1 1694:1 WLR 164 1565:2 KB 740 1082:equitable 1061:Estoppel; 985:fiduciary 964:1 WLR 997 642:requested 398:benefited 328:bona fide 323:Defences. 220:Lord Goff 194:Cambridge 135:known as 75:right to 66:traceable 5663:1 QB 402 5631:QB 195; 5562:2 AC 349 5465:UKSC 26. 5448:2 KB 500 4685:See also 4427:Estoppel 4352:Defences 4256:Tracing 4054:personal 3803:1 KB 321 3722:1 AC 221 3677:ss 39-40 3100:Chancery 2527:Equity, 2426:2 Ch 276 2386:1 KB 321 2181:1 QB 525 1722:2 AC 352 1651:1 KB 671 1445:Taxonomy 1042:Defences 1013:2 AC 349 952:2 Ch 277 895:1 KB 321 810:2 AC 352 718:distress 674:Mercedes 622:chattels 614:enriched 419:defences 394:enriched 317:civilian 270:response 85:enriched 31:contract 5594:QB 677. 5421:UKSC 26 5368:414-36. 5316:UKHL 49 4906:G Jones 4190:1 Ch 62 4028:tracing 4014:UKPC 35 3945:1 Ch 62 3932:UKHL 29 3919:Ch 1179 3830:UKHL 12 3407:UKSC 47 3394:UKSC 42 2892:UKPC 22 2876:UKHL 44 2478:UKHL 28 2411:UKHL 12 2271:UKHL 62 2257:UKHL 10 1913:UKPC 50 1785:Mistake 1538:UKHL J3 1392:broader 1390:In its 1383:In its 1037:UKHL 49 880:1 SCR 3 700:valuing 127:History 4912:(1966) 4902:R Goff 4479:Agency 3972:UKPC 1 3958:UKPC 3 3907:Ch 356 3869:Ch 465 3857:AC 398 3459:UKHL 1 3444:AC 535 3422:Ch 591 2654:QB 705 2575:Duress 2464:AC 251 2438:Ch 264 2398:Ch 265 2166:UKHL 4 2150:UKHL 1 1709:UKHL 8 1681:UKHL 3 1638:UKHL 3 1608:UKHL 4 1594:UKPC 1 1580:UKHL 2 1456:breach 1385:narrow 703:money. 456:Equity 412:unjust 299:labour 190:Oxford 99:unjust 39:trusts 37:, and 5736: 5683:342, 5675: 5639: 5380: 5284: 5181:(PDF) 5149:(PDF) 5118: 5098: 5063: 5028: 4993: 4968: 4844:, 2 4840: 4804: 4754:Notes 1665: 1405:total 1021:AC 70 937: 922: 907: 864: 837: 822: 274:event 101:; and 5774:See 5500:See 5457:See 5417:See 5094:cf. 4904:and 4848:548. 4071:and 4026:and 4022:See 3667:and 3652:See 3507:See 3306:See 3042:and 3027:See 2797:and 2485:See 2041:and 2037:See 1773:and 1769:See 1623:c 40 1352:See 971:See 651:; or 601:See 368:and 240:and 214:and 192:and 35:tort 21:The 5724:551 5681:CLR 5645:CLR 5034:CLR 4874:per 4680:s 3 706:In 684:In 666:In 396:or 382:in 5850:: 5813:, 5740:, 5426:^ 5288:, 5272:^ 5196:, 5102:, 5055:AC 4908:, 4846:AC 4828:^ 4786:^ 79:: 60:, 33:, 5778:. 5525:. 5511:. 5384:. 5183:. 5151:. 4926:. 4879:. 4808:. 3768:e 3761:t 3754:v 3736:. 3561:e 3554:t 3547:v 3351:e 3344:t 3337:v 3145:e 3138:t 3131:v 2842:e 2835:t 2828:v 2602:e 2595:t 2588:v 2353:e 2346:t 2339:v 2298:) 2294:( 2094:e 2087:t 2080:v 1835:e 1828:t 1821:v 1625:) 1621:( 1504:e 1497:t 1490:v 1468:; 1130:e 1123:t 1116:v 789:e 782:t 775:v 628:' 494:e 487:t 480:v 430:. 421:? 414:? 407:? 400:? 310:' 259:. 146:; 94:; 87:;

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

English unjust enrichment law

Index