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.
728:
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.
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.
3967:
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
4488:
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
2712:
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
2686:
4566:
4447:
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.
4538:
1288:
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
4405:
1633:
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
2699:
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
2673:
2420:
2535:
1943:
1702:
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:
1301:
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
5059:
4398:
3681:
2771:
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’.
4495:
3250:
2901:
1339:
1009:
4335:
1744:
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
2958:
1314:
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.
5312:
4343:
3237:
1033:
4622:
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.
4412:
2725:
202:
4601:
4419:
1690:
1222:
4391:
1979:
4009:
3726:
3274:
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
3631:
4290:
4298:
3006:
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.
1277:
4440:
4384:
3017:
4677:
3587:
4608:
3296:
3642:
4171:
3915:
2971:
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
5501:
1883:
1603:
4215:
2497:
1211:
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
4615:
5050:
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.
384:
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.
4671:
2982:
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
1255:
1156:
4319:
4524:
4248:
3160:
1956:
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
253:
4236:
4118:
3718:
3709:
3576:
3204:
2650:
2550:
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
4545:
4531:
4433:
3285:
2947:
2784:
2159:
2003:
1990:
1872:
1244:
1128:
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
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
4229:
3995:
3620:
3215:
3182:
2760:
2628:
1200:
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
4664:
4643:
4587:
4261:
2092:
1921:
1189:
1167:
1025:
5810:
4657:
4269:
3598:
3193:
2639:
1017:
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.
988:(claimant) had no prior proprietary interest in the benefit, nor even that the benefit would never have otherwise been received by the principal.
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
4471:
4464:
1907:
1861:
1266:
948:
5258:
4594:
3416:
3263:
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
1894:
301:
and benefits in kind are passed. This distinction owes its origin to the fact that, historically speaking, these were different kinds of claim.
4580:
4311:
4201:
3452:
1502:
1178:
3468:
889:
4097:
3797:
2869:
2514:
2380:
2175:
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.
2025:
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
804:
521:
325:
The categories of defences are also controversial: "change of position" is a general defence, although the law recognises estoppel, the
5508:
5263:
3559:
3349:
2885:
2736:
2446:
1616:
492:
4905:
4147:
3143:
2351:
1659:
668:
545:
4901:
2840:
2600:
2472:
1966:
1833:
379:
171:
56:. Its precise scope remains a matter of controversy. Beyond quasi-contract, it is sometimes said to encompass the law relating to
3766:
3482:
3440:
3171:
1718:
1121:
787:
5280:
1589:
1145:
860:
580:
569:
297:
The principles of enrichment and expense are more stable in cases of transfers of goods or money, but contested in cases where
4059:
Academic writers have sought to expand the explanatory power of 'unjust enrichment'. They have suggested that the doctrine of
4507:
In circumstances where one party is claiming recovery of the benefits the other party has unjustly obtained ("restitution"),
3839:
3081:
Legal compulsion is a proposed ground of restitution. It is said to explain the law relating to recoupment and contribution.
2279:
2085:
1394:
sense, consideration refers to the failure of a legal or factual state of affairs which has failed to materialise or subsist.
875:
4981:
Namely, an action for money had and received (for money), a quantum meruit (for services), or a quantum valebat (for goods).
1411:
Where, properly construed, the benefit received by the defendant did not form part of the bargained-for counter-performance;
4720:
4559:
3114:
Whether such claims are capable of being rationalised on the ground of unjust enrichment remains a controversial question.
2317:
2121:
1387:
and most commonly encountered sense, consideration refers to the failure of the condition on which a benefit was conferred.
997:
enrichment. This means that a claimant must plead by reference to the various factors that the law recognises as 'unjust'.
848:
211:
4483:
Another available defence is ministerial receipt, i.e. the recipient defendant receives the assets as agent for another.
3696:
1676:
833:
5522:
5024:
4186:
3981:
3941:
2282:
1114:
721:
1084:; whether a claim is for a personal or proprietary remedy; and whether the claim is brought under national or EU law.
2543:
2434:
1932:
1495:
918:
4222:
3043:
2798:
2305:
2078:
2066:
445:
The precise status of this analytic framework and its underpinning concept of unjust enrichment is controversial.
5720:
See, e.g., Jonathan Hilliard, 'A Case for the Abolition of Legal Compulsion as a Ground of Restitution' (2002) 61
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
2291:
2042:
1790:
315:
mistake, duress, undue influence and failure of consideration. The unjust factor approach contrasts with certain
3552:
3342:
3039:
2558:
2210:
485:
3136:
2344:
2198:
1770:
747:
The enrichment must have come at the 'expense' of the claimant. There are two particularly difficult issues:
732:
534:
5010:
The statement is wholly endorsed by the current editors of Goff & Jones: Mitchell, Mitchell, Watterson,
4836:
4745:
4369:
4111:
3825:
3526:
2833:
2593:
2406:
2238:
1826:
1488:
1376:
818:
249:
236:
Academic writing continues to be heavily cited by the highest courts, particularly the more recent work of
224:
155:(that is, a claim for reasonable remuneration for services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant); and
114:
5071:
so that a £250k payment to a former chief executive could not be recovered as being irrationally overpaid.
3692:
so that a £250k payment to a former chief executive could not be recovered as being irrationally overpaid.
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.
4876:
4104:
3877:
3811:
3759:
2521:
2394:
2295:
2266:
960:
903:
780:
458:
in a modern system of law. Unjust enrichment has been a key battleground for the so-called 'fusion wars'.
1566:
433:'unjust factor' was mistake: the company had conferred the benefit whilst labouring under the incorrect
5858:
4695:
4376:
3732:
3668:
2252:
2188:
1774:
1465:
76:
61:
46:
5863:
5177:
5145:
4023:
3664:
3653:
3545:
3519:
3508:
3335:
3307:
3028:
2794:
2486:
2038:
2014:
1575:
1353:
677:
478:
5680:
5644:
5054:
5033:
4845:
4194:
3953:
3318:
3129:
2337:
1364:
1102:
316:
5741:
5684:
5289:
5103:
5037:
2826:
2586:
1819:
691:
686:
558:
193:
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'
4155:
4038:
3891:
3752:
1430:
773:
197:
143:
65:
4994:
1637:
4725:
2809:
2662:
1795:
A benefit conferred upon another whilst labouring under a qualifying mistake gives rise to a
1233:
215:
4056:
liability: the claimant has no proprietary interest in any specific asset of the defendant.
139:. From this action came the 'common money counts'. Of present relevance are the following:
5853:
5737:
5676:
5640:
5285:
5099:
4710:
3429:
1730:
1666:
1622:
865:
189:
30:
5214:
5029:
8:
5119:
5064:
4964:
4132:
3853:
3843:
1760:
1533:
1471:
Where a contract is rescinded due to a vitiating factor (e.g., mistake; undue influence);
938:
933:
591:
3685:
923:
5193:
4690:
4629:
4362:
3999:
3985:
3881:
3787:
3674:
3609:
3103:
3092:
action known as an action for money paid, laid out and expended to the defendant's use.
2936:
2617:
2242:
1461:
Where a contract is unenforceable for want of compliance with the relevant formalities;
1455:
3815:
3486:
2228:
2214:
1734:
1551:
1523:
838:
5775:
4700:
4282:
4178:
3927:
3702:
3366:
3099:
3053:
2857:
2749:
1547:
708:
695:
621:
509:
365:
181:
42:
38:
5381:
4969:
4841:
4805:
908:
823:
112:. Its existence as a separate body of law was only explicitly recognised in 1991 in
5814:
4705:
4517:
4013:
3931:
3829:
3406:
3378:
2891:
2875:
2410:
2270:
2256:
1537:
1417:
Where the claimant has a legal right to reject the benefit and return it in specie;
1327:
434:
49:
of a benefit acquired at the expense of another in circumstances which are unjust.
34:
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
4090:
3783:
3496:
2914:
2528:
2507:
2368:
2133:
1756:
1647:
1519:
1004:
English cases featuring general discussion on the question of injustice include:
207:
5081:
4735:
4072:
3402:
3089:
2818:
2109:
1850:
673:
463:
categories. Whether it is desirable to do so remains a controversial question.
427:
237:
167:
132:
53:
716:
shop and the property inside, including Exall's carriage. In order to end the
5847:
4636:
4027:
3390:
2224:
1561:
713:
352:
298:
2070:
1480:
1106:
4740:
4077:
3107:
2145:
1081:
455:
241:
1367:. Academic writing typically refers to this ground as "failure of basis".
736:, held that receiving sewerage services was an "incontrovertible benefit".
440:
5364:
See Frederick Wilmot-Smith, 'Reconsidering "Total" Failure' (2013) 72(2)
4730:
4489:
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation
4068:
4060:
3327:
1429:
The ground of restitution known as total failure of developed within the
470:
375:
369:
344:
229:
109:
72:
57:
26:
4139:
3865:
3226:
2995:
2925:
2566:
2460:
727:
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
4163:
3903:
3537:
1420:
Where there has been a total failure in relation to a severable part.
984:
717:
327:
290:
enrichment. Nevertheless, uncertainty pervades key areas of the law:
219:
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:
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
3740:
3110:
claim. Some rights of contribution are now governed by statute.
2578:
1403:
The orthodox rule is that the failure of consideration must be
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
2052:
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
1424:
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,
4817:
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.
991:
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
5270:
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
263:
5051:
Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea) Ltd
2814:
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
4502:
1026:Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v HMRC
5845:
4472:Dextra Bank & Trust Co Ltd v Bank of Jamaica
2848:
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:
2100:
2086:
1827:
1510:
1496:
1136:
1122:
781:
486:
97:this enrichment at the claimant's expense is
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;
742:
676:for £20,290 but was mistakenly also given a
4784:
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
1370:
1341:Pecuniary Restitution on Breach of Contract
1096:
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
280:
5609:Goff & Jones' Law of Unjust Enrichment
5578:(1856) 1 H&N 210; but note cases like
5509:Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
5424:
5264:Kingstreet Investments Ltd v New Brunswick
5208:
5057:221, per Lord Steyn and Lord Hoffmann, cf
4336:Space Investments Ltd v CIBC (Bahamas) Ltd
3767:
3753:
3560:
3546:
3454:Esso Ltd v Harper's Garage (Stourport) Ltd
3357:
3350:
3336:
3144:
3130:
2887:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
2841:
2827:
2738:R v Attorney General for England and Wales
2601:
2587:
2448:Belmont Finance Corp v Williams Ltd (No 2)
2352:
2338:
2093:
2079:
1834:
1820:
1618:Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943
1503:
1489:
1129:
1115:
788:
774:
500:
493:
479:
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
4826:
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
1398:
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
726:
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
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
795:
234:Introduction to the Law of Restitution.
5846:
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
4454:
3968:Space Ltd v Canadian Imperial Bank Ltd
3840:Trustee of FC Jones & Sons v Jones
3567:
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
5161:
5131:See generally, Edelman and Degeling,
4921:
4413:Barros Mattos Junior v Macdaniels Ltd
4356:
3748:
3541:
3331:
3151:
3125:
2822:
2582:
2359:
2333:
2280:Unfair Commercial Practices Directive
2074:
1815:
1604:Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn Lawson Ltd
1484:
1223:DO Ferguson & Associates v M Sohl
1110:
876:Kingstreet Invest Ltd v New Brunswick
769:
474:
359:
203:Restatement of the Law of Restitution
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
2060:
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
3774:
3697:Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC
3076:
1980:County of Carelton v City of Ottawa
1841:
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
13:
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:
5875:
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
1087:
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
2608:
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
5803:
5794:
5781:
5768:
5753:See generally, Andrew Burrows,
5747:
5727:
5714:
5702:
5690:
5666:
5650:
5614:
5597:
5585:
5565:
5553:
5541:
5528:
5515:
5494:
5481:
5468:
5451:
5439:
5411:
5399:
5387:
5371:
5358:
5348:
5329:UKSC 26; see generally, Virgo,
5319:
5304:
5295:
5252:
5231:
5219:
5199:
5187:
5170:
5155:
5138:
5125:
5109:
5088:
5074:
5043:
5017:
5004:
4984:
4975:
4956:
4939:
4930:
4892:EWCA Civ 1663 at (Mummery LJ).
4650:
4573:
4299:Commerzbank AG v IMB Morgan plc
3007:The Port Caledonia and The Anna
2562:, unconscionability as the test
2292:Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
1803:
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,
4915:
4895:
4882:
4863:
4851:
4811:
4759:
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:
5823:
5605:The Principles of Restitution
4972:on the meaning of enrichment.
4552:
4351:
3588:Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd
3533:
3323:
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
466:
210:appeared in 1966, written by
121:
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
3117:
2849:Undue influence and weakness
2407:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd
2325:
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
7:
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
4684:
4426:
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
1444:
1041:
961:Brown and Davis v Galbraith
939:[2014] EWCA Civ 360
904:FII Group Litigation v HMRC
10:
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:
1784:
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
126:
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
4478:
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:
2574:
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
4753:
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
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:
3745:
3621:Brougham v Dwyer
3562:
3555:
3548:
3539:
3538:
3471:
3455:
3419:
3379:Holman v Johnson
3352:
3345:
3338:
3329:
3328:
3253:
3240:
3216:Bradshaw v Beard
3183:Jenkins v Tucker
3146:
3139:
3132:
3123:
3122:
3077:Legal compulsion
2985:
2961:
2904:
2888:
2872:
2843:
2836:
2829:
2820:
2819:
2774:
2761:Silsbee v Webber
2739:
2715:
2702:
2689:
2676:
2629:Astley v Reyonds
2603:
2596:
2589:
2580:
2579:
2475:
2449:
2423:
2383:
2354:
2347:
2340:
2331:
2330:
2178:
2162:
2137:(1881) 20 Ch D 1
2095:
2088:
2081:
2072:
2071:
2028:
1993:
1969:
1946:
1910:
1897:
1836:
1829:
1822:
1813:
1812:
1705:
1662:
1619:
1505:
1498:
1491:
1482:
1481:
1342:
1328:Sumpter v Hedges
1317:
1304:
1291:
1201:Rowland v Divall
1131:
1124:
1117:
1108:
1107:
892:
807:
790:
783:
776:
767:
766:
548:
524:
495:
488:
481:
472:
471:
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:
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:
4920:
4916:
4900:
4896:
4887:
4883:
4868:
4864:
4856:
4852:
4834:
4827:
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:
5867:
5866:
5861:
5856:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5876:
5865:
5862:
5860:
5857:
5855:
5852:
5851:
5849:
5839:
5835:
5832:
5828:
5827:
5816:
5812:
5806:
5797:
5790:
5784:
5777:
5771:
5764:
5760:
5756:
5750:
5743:
5739:
5735:
5730:
5723:
5717:
5711:
5705:
5698:
5693:
5686:
5682:
5679:, (1969) 121
5678:
5674:
5669:
5662:
5658:
5653:
5646:
5643:, (2008) 232
5642:
5638:
5634:
5630:
5626:
5622:
5617:
5610:
5606:
5600:
5593:
5588:
5581:
5577:
5576:Aiken v Short
5573:
5568:
5561:
5556:
5549:
5544:
5537:
5531:
5524:
5518:
5512:
5510:
5505:
5504:
5497:
5490:
5484:
5477:
5471:
5464:
5460:
5454:
5447:
5442:
5435:
5430:
5428:
5420:
5414:
5407:
5402:
5395:
5390:
5383:
5379:
5374:
5367:
5361:
5351:
5344:
5340:
5336:
5332:
5328:
5322:
5315:
5314:
5307:
5298:
5291:
5287:
5283:
5282:
5276:
5274:
5266:
5265:
5260:
5255:
5248:
5244:
5240:
5234:
5227:
5222:
5216:
5211:
5202:
5195:
5190:
5179:
5173:
5165:
5158:
5147:
5141:
5134:
5128:
5121:
5117:
5112:
5105:
5101:
5097:
5091:
5084:
5083:
5077:
5070:
5066:
5062:
5061:
5056:
5053:
5052:
5046:
5039:
5035:
5032:, (1987) 162
5031:
5027:
5026:
5020:
5013:
5007:
5000:
4996:
4992:
4987:
4978:
4971:
4967:
4966:
4962:For example,
4959:
4952:
4948:
4942:
4933:
4925:
4918:
4911:
4907:
4903:
4898:
4891:
4885:
4878:
4875:
4871:
4866:
4860:
4854:
4847:
4843:
4839:
4838:
4832:
4830:
4821:
4814:
4807:
4803:
4798:
4796:
4794:
4792:
4790:
4788:
4780:
4776:
4772:
4768:
4762:
4758:
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:
4679:
4676:
4674:
4673:
4669:
4667:
4666:
4662:
4660:
4659:
4655:
4654:
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:
4569:
4568:
4564:
4562:
4561:
4557:
4556:
4548:
4547:
4543:
4541:
4540:
4536:
4534:
4533:
4529:
4527:
4526:
4522:
4520:
4519:
4515:
4514:
4513:
4510:
4498:
4497:
4493:
4491:
4490:
4486:
4485:
4484:
4474:
4473:
4469:
4467:
4466:
4465:Miller v Race
4462:
4461:
4460:
4450:
4449:
4445:
4443:
4442:
4438:
4436:
4435:
4431:
4430:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
3115:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3097:
3094:
3091:
3087:
3084:
3083:
3082:
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:
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:
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:
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:
2058:
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:
1801:
1798:
1792:
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:
1442:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1378:
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:
1094:
1085:
1083:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1048:
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:
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:
464:
457:
452:
448:
447:
446:
438:
436:
431:
429:
420:
416:
413:
409:
406:
402:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
387:
386:
381:
377:
371:
367:
357:
354:
353:Justice Deane
346:
341:
336:
333:
330:
329:
324:
321:
318:
313:
309:
306:
303:
300:
296:
293:
292:
291:
287:
278:
275:
271:
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:
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.