|
Change Of Position
Change of position is a defence to a claim in unjust enrichment which operates to reduce a defendant's liability to the extent to which his or her circumstances have changed as a consequence of an enrichment. History The historical core of the law of unjust enrichment consists of the quasi-contractual actions of money had and received, money paid to the defendant's use, quantum meruit and quantum valebat. These personal common law actions generated an obligation on the part of the defendant to give restitution of a gain acquired at the expense of the plaintiff. This liability was strict and independent of any wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. Change of position provides a defence to a defendant where it would be inequitable to compel him or her to make restitution. The defence was recognised as part of the English law of unjust enrichment by Lord Goff in ''Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd'' 9912 AC 548. Cases & Materials *'' Ministry of Health v Simpson'' 951AC 251, affirm ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Unjust Enrichment
In laws of equity, unjust enrichment occurs when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution, subject to defences such as change of position. Liability for an unjust (or unjustified) enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient. The concept of unjust enrichment can be traced to Roman law and the maxim that "no one should be benefited at another's expense": ''nemo locupletari potest aliena iactura'' or ''nemo locupletari debet cum aliena iactura''. The law of unjust enrichment is closely related to, but not co-extensive with, the law of restitution. The law of restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. It is wider than the law of unjust enrichment. Restitution for unjust enrichment is a subset of the law of restitution in the same way that compensation for breach of contract is a subset of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quasi-contract
A quasi-contract (or implied-in-law contract or constructive contract) is a fictional contract recognised by a court. The notion of a quasi-contract can be traced to Roman law and is still a concept used in some modern legal systems. Quasi Contract laws have been deduced from the Latin statement "Nemo debet locupletari ex aliena jactura", which proclaims that no man should grow rich out of another person's loss. It was one of the central doctrines of Roman law. History In common law jurisdictions, the law of quasi-contract can be traced to the medieval form of action known as ''indebitatus assumpsit''. In essence, the plaintiff would recover a money sum from the defendant ''as if'' the defendant had promised to pay it: that is, ''as if'' there were a contract subsisting between the parties. The defendant's promise—their agreement to be bound by the "contract"—was implied by law. The law of quasi-contract was generally used to enforce restitutionary obligations. The form of a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Money Had And Received
An action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use is the name for a common law claim derived from the form of action known as ''indebitatus assumpsit''. The action enabled one person to recover money which has been received by another: for example, where a plaintiff paid money to the defendant while labouring under a mistake of fact or where there was a total failure of consideration. The action was a personal action only available in respect of money, rather than other benefits. Where the benefit received by the defendant was services or goods, the appropriate action was a ''quantum meruit'' or a ''quantum valebant'', respectively. The action for money had and received formed a part of the law of quasi-contract. Although the forms of action were abolished in the mid-19th century, reference continues to be made to the action in modern pleading.Cf. Graham Virgo, ''The Principles of the Law of Restitution'' (3rd ed, 2015). The terminology of "quasi-contract" has been repla ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Quantum Meruit
''Quantum meruit'' is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services". In the United States, the elements of ''quantum meruit'' are determined by state common law. For example, to state a claim for unjust enrichment in New York, a plaintiff must allege that (1) defendant was enriched; (2) the enrichment was at plaintiff's expense; and (3) the circumstances were such that equity and good conscience require defendants to make restitution. Situations ''Quantum meruit'' is the measure of damages where an express contract is mutually modified by the implied agreement of the parties, or not completed. While there is often confusion between the concept of ''quantum meruit'' and that of "unjust enrichment" of one party at the expense of another, the two concepts are distinct. The concept of ''quantum meruit'' applies in (but is not limited to) the following set of situations: #When a pers ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified," ''Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting). By the early 20th century, legal professionals had come to reject any idea of a higher or natural law, or a law above the law. The law arises through the act of a sovereign, whether that sovereign speaks through a legislature, executive, or judicial officer. The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. '' Stare decisis'', the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Restitution
The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to ''give up'' their gains to the claimant. It should be contrasted with the law of compensation, the law of loss-based recovery, in which a court orders the defendant to ''pay'' the claimant for their loss. Evolving Meaning ''American Jurisprudence'' 2d edition notes: Legal vs Equitable Remedy Restitution may be either a legal remedy or an equitable remedy, "depend ngupon the basis for the plaintiff's claim and the nature of the underlying remedies sought". Generally, restitution and equitable tracing is an equitable remedy when the money or property wrongfully in the possession of defendant is traceable (i.e., can be tied to "particular funds or property"). In such a case, restitution comes in the form of a constructive trust or equitable lien. Where the particular property at issue cannot be particularly identified, restitution is a legal remedy. This occurs, for example ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Strict Liability
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them. In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals. Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous": # storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area # pile driving # b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Unjust Enrichment Law
The English law of unjust enrichment is part of the English law of obligations, along with the law of contract, tort, and trusts. The law of unjust enrichment deals with circumstances in which one person is required to make restitution of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust. The modern law of unjust enrichment encompasses what was once known as the law of quasi-contract. Its precise scope remains a matter of controversy. Beyond quasi-contract, it is sometimes said to encompass the law relating to subrogation, contribution, recoupment, and claims to the traceable substitutes of misapplied property. 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 prima facie right to restitution: # the defendant has been ''enriched''; # this enrichment is ''at the claimant's expense''; # this enrichment at the claimant's expense is ''unjus ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Lipkin Gorman V Karpnale Ltd
is a foundational English unjust enrichment case. The House of Lords unanimously established that the basis of an action for money had and received is the principle of unjust enrichment, and that an award of restitution is subject to a defence of change of position. This secured unjust enrichment as the third pillar in English law of the law of obligations, along with contract and tort. It has been called a landmark decision. Although the case is most famous for the transformative judgment handed down by the House of Lords in relation to restitution and unjust enrichment, the decision of the Court of Appeal is also an important banking law decision in its own right, setting out key principles relating to the duty of care owed by bankers to their customers. There was no appeal against that part of the decision to the House of Lords. Facts Norman Barry Cass was a partner in a solicitors' firm called Lipkin Gorman. He was an authorised signatory at the firm’s Lloyds Bank acc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Ministry Of Health V Simpson
''Re Diplock'' or ''Ministry of Health v Simpson'' 951AC 251 is an English trusts law and unjust enrichment case, concerning tracing and an action for money had and received. Facts Various charities, including the Royal Sailors Orphans Girls’ School and Home and Dr Barnardo’s Homes had wrongly been paid money by personal representatives under Mr Caleb Diplock’s will, which left £263,000. The representatives mistakenly believed a clause in the will was valid. Some money went to be used to improve and repair other property. But the trust was held to be invalid in a decision of the House of Lords, called '' Chichester Diocesian Fund and Board of Finance Incorporated v Simpson''. The next of kin, including Cornelius Simpson, claimed that the money should be repaid by the recipients. Judgment Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s claim for a charge over newly built buildings. It allowed a claim for equitable tracing in the mixed funds held by the char ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Diplock
''Re Diplock'' or ''Ministry of Health v Simpson'' 951AC 251 is an English trusts law and unjust enrichment case, concerning tracing and an action for money had and received. Facts Various charities, including the Royal Sailors Orphans Girls’ School and Home and Dr Barnardo’s Homes had wrongly been paid money by personal representatives under Mr Caleb Diplock’s will, which left £263,000. The representatives mistakenly believed a clause in the will was valid. Some money went to be used to improve and repair other property. But the trust was held to be invalid in a decision of the House of Lords, called '' Chichester Diocesian Fund and Board of Finance Incorporated v Simpson''. The next of kin, including Cornelius Simpson, claimed that the money should be repaid by the recipients. Judgment Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s claim for a charge over newly built buildings. It allowed a claim for equitable tracing in the mixed funds held by the chari ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Charles Mitchell (academic)
Charles Christopher James Mitchell KC ( Hon) (born 14 May 1965) is a British legal scholar acknowledged as one of the leading common-law experts on the English law of restitution of unjust enrichment and the law of trusts. He is the author of two leading textbooks and one practitioner's book. He is currently Professor of Law at University College London and Senior Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Career Mitchell completed his PhD at University College London and was supervised by Peter Birks. Until 2008 he worked at King's College London, before spending a year as Professor of Property Law at Jesus College, Oxford. Mitchell was also previously general editor of the ''King's Law Journal''. Personal life In April 1992, Mitchell married The Honourable Dr Charlotte Lennox-Boyd, daughter of Simon Lennox-Boyd, 2nd Viscount Boyd of Merton and the former Alice Clive. Dr Charlotte Mitchell is Honorary Senior Lecturer at UCL's Department of Eng ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.png "Click for more on -> Common Law")
