25:
215:, 1992: a building project was left incomplete. The contractor argued that much of the work had been done before they left the project so there was not a "total failure of contract". The contractor had been paid for more than the value of the work which was complete and the
140:. Where there is a "total failure of consideration" the claimant can seek restitution of the benefit by bringing an action in unjust enrichment against the defendant. Historically speaking, this was as a
196:
Whether a claimant can elect to terminate a contract for breach and escape a 'bad bargain' by suing in unjust enrichment on the ground of total failure of consideration.
148:
for a consideration that wholly failed. The orthodox view is that it is necessary for any relevant contract to be ineffective, for example because it is discharged for
190:
173:
Whether 'consideration' refers not only to bargained-for counter-performance by the defendant, but also a legal or factual state of affairs;
89:
61:
42:
186:
Whether the (now ineffective) contract has any impact upon (a) the availability of a claim; or (b) the valuation of any such claim;
375:
68:
337:
75:
163:. However, it will be available on a subsisting contract where it does not undermine the contractual allocation of risk.
216:
108:
57:
280:
302:
128:
term referring to situations in which one person confers a benefit upon another upon some condition or basis ("
46:
176:
Whether this ground of restitution only applies to money claims or also extends to non-money benefits (e.g.,
137:
133:
170:
Whether the failure of the consideration must be 'total', and the scope and meaning of such a requirement;
160:
82:
166:
Failure of consideration is a highly technical area of law. Particular areas of controversy include:
353:
132:") which fails to materialise or subsist. It is also referred to as "failure of basis". It is an '
35:
145:
298:
419:
395:
316:
414:
8:
391:
219:
held that there had been "a failure of consideration" in respect of the overpaid amount.
149:
177:
371:
333:
366:
341:
223:
141:
408:
129:
183:
Whether this ground of restitution can be relied upon by a contract-breaker;
153:
24:
125:
324:(2006) 33(1) University of Western Australia Law Review 132.
231:
Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India
Formula One Team Ltd.
388:
Giedo van der Garde BV v Force India
Formula One Team Ltd
146:
action for money had and received to the plaintiff's use
189:
Whether a failure of consideration can also generate
49:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
259:Mason & Carter's Restitution Law in Australia
406:
356:, updated 4 May 2022, accessed 2 December 2022
354:D O Ferguson and Associates v M Sohl: CA 1992
257:Keith Mason, John Carter, Gregory Tolhurst,
281:"Restitution on a Partial Failure of Basis"
109:Learn how and when to remove this message
407:
334:Case Brief: Rowland v. Divall (1922)
252:Principles of the Law of Restitution
213:D O Ferguson and Associates v M Sohl
47:adding citations to reliable sources
18:
314:
13:
378: (on appeal from New Zealand).
278:
237:
14:
431:
392:[2010] EWHC 2373 (QB)
317:"Total Failure of Consideration"
23:
34:needs additional citations for
381:
359:
346:
327:
308:
288:
272:
1:
285:(2016) 28 Bond Law Review 21.
265:
7:
336:, accessed 22 October 2016
10:
436:
193:(e.g., a resulting trust);
136:' for the purposes of the
58:"Failure of consideration"
299:[2007] NSWCA 153
200:
159:(from the beginning) or
138:law of unjust enrichment
122:Failure of consideration
340:22 October 2016 at the
372:[1996] UKPC 17
245:The Law of Restitution
305:(NSW, Australia).
398:(England and Wales).
191:proprietary remedies
43:improve this article
144:claim known as an
142:quasi-contractual
119:
118:
111:
93:
427:
399:
385:
379:
363:
357:
350:
344:
331:
325:
323:
321:
312:
306:
292:
286:
284:
276:
243:Andrew Burrows,
207:Rowland v Divall
114:
107:
103:
100:
94:
92:
51:
27:
19:
435:
434:
430:
429:
428:
426:
425:
424:
405:
404:
403:
402:
386:
382:
367:Goss v Chilcott
364:
360:
351:
347:
342:Wayback Machine
332:
328:
319:
313:
309:
303:Court of Appeal
295:Coshott v Lenin
293:
289:
277:
273:
268:
261:(2nd ed, 2008).
254:(3rd ed, 2015).
247:(3rd ed, 2011).
240:
238:Further reading
224:Goss v Chilcott
209:, KB 500, 1923
203:
124:is a technical
115:
104:
98:
95:
52:
50:
40:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
433:
423:
422:
417:
401:
400:
380:
358:
352:Swarbrick, D,
345:
326:
307:
287:
270:
269:
267:
264:
263:
262:
255:
250:Graham Virgo,
248:
239:
236:
235:
234:
228:
220:
210:
202:
199:
198:
197:
194:
187:
184:
181:
174:
171:
117:
116:
31:
29:
22:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
432:
421:
418:
416:
413:
412:
410:
397:
393:
389:
384:
377:
376:Privy Council
373:
369:
368:
362:
355:
349:
343:
339:
335:
330:
318:
311:
304:
300:
296:
291:
282:
275:
271:
260:
256:
253:
249:
246:
242:
241:
232:
229:
226:
225:
221:
218:
214:
211:
208:
205:
204:
195:
192:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
169:
168:
167:
164:
162:
158:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:unjust factor
131:
130:consideration
127:
123:
113:
110:
102:
91:
88:
84:
81:
77:
74:
70:
67:
63:
60: –
59:
55:
54:Find sources:
48:
44:
38:
37:
32:This article
30:
26:
21:
20:
420:Contract law
387:
383:
365:
361:
348:
329:
315:Tarrant, J.
310:
294:
290:
274:
258:
251:
244:
230:
222:
217:Appeal Court
212:
206:
180:, services);
165:
156:
121:
120:
105:
99:October 2016
96:
86:
79:
72:
65:
53:
41:Please help
36:verification
33:
415:Restitution
409:Categories
396:High Court
266:References
161:frustrated
69:newspapers
16:Legal term
157:ab initio
338:Archived
279:Camp T.
178:chattels
233:, 2010
227:, 1996
83:scholar
150:breach
85:
78:
71:
64:
56:
390:
370:
320:(PDF)
297:
201:Cases
126:legal
90:JSTOR
76:books
154:void
62:news
45:by
411::
394:,
374:,
301:,
152:,
322:.
283:.
112:)
106:(
101:)
97:(
87:·
80:·
73:·
66:·
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
