Restitution and unjust enrichment

673:

circumstances it will be open to B to seek restitution rather than compensation. It will be in B's interest to do so if the profit that A made by his wrongful act is greater than the loss suffered by B. Or in some circumstances, the lost good "G" carries more value to B than the actual cost of "G". For example, suppose B possesses a rare book from the 14th century (G), which cost only Rs 10 in that period. A has illegally stolen G (from B) and has destroyed it. Currently very few samples of G exist in the world, yet since its demand is not much, G still costs Rs 10. Since very few samples exist in the world, it is near impossible to find a person from whom G could be bought. In such a circumstance, B is entitled to get Rs 10 from A under the law of torts. However, B might prefer to apply law of restitution instead (waiver of torts), and claim that he needs a copy of G rather than Rs 10.

725:, an English court found itself faced with the following claim. The defendant had made a profit somewhere in the region of £60,000 as a direct result of breaching his contract with the claimant. The claimant was undoubtedly entitled to claim compensatory damages but had suffered little or no identifiable loss. It therefore decided to seek restitution for the wrong of breach of contract. The claimant won the case and the defendant was ordered to pay over his profits to the claimant. However, the court was careful to point out that the normal legal response to a breach of contract is to award compensation. An order to make restitution was said to be available only in exceptional circumstances. 623:

for such services are void unless in writing. B refuses to perform. Can A recover his payment? On both approaches, B is unjustly enriched at A's expense. On the "absence of basis" approach, B's enrichment has no legitimate explanatory basis because the contract was void. On the "unjust factor" approach, there has been a total failure of consideration – that is, A has received no part of the bargained-for counter-performance; restitution follows automatically from the fact of invalidity.

3371: 876:, in which Lord Roger essentially laid the bedrock for what is now considered modern Scots unjustified enrichment law, bringing together the fragmented law into one framework, drawing from the principles of Roman Law upon which Scots Law as a whole is based (note the term "unjustified" is preferred to "unjust" in Scotland). Unjustified enrichment is more established as a fundamental part of the Scots law of obligations than unjust enrichment is in English law. 3385: 1082:, 530 US 604 (2000), the Supreme Court ruled that, in a contract with the United States (one of few areas where federal contract law applies), repudiation is grounds for restitution, even if the contract was repudiated by a statute. (Congress had blocked Mobil's offshore oil lease, so the United States had to return the money paid for the lease.) 843:"substantial and direct". The absence of juristic reason is satisfied if a Plaintiff establishes a reason why the benefit ought not be retained, or if the Defendant demonstrates a convincing argument in favour of retention of the property. Remedy for unjust enrichment is frequently an imposition of constructive trust over the property unjustly retained. 426:(cause), which renders contracts actionable even when they are not normally recognized under Roman law. In contrast, the concept of unjustified enrichment is considerably broader and more frequently invoked in Germany and Greece to address issues of restitution as well as restoration for failed juridical acts. 228:(the law of compensation), restitution is a claim or remedy requiring a defendant to give up benefits wrongfully obtained. Liability for restitution is primarily governed by the "principle of unjust enrichment": A person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution. 1911: 1130:(2021), the Supreme Court held that statutory authority for the Federal Trade Commission to sue for an “injunction” does not authorize suit for restitution. The court unanimously held that the statutory language refers to prospective equitable relief, and does not include retrospective monetary relief. 622:

In most cases, the conceptual approach does not affect the outcome of a case. For example, suppose that A makes an oral contract with B under which A will pay $ 100 for certain services to be provided by B. Further suppose that A pays the money but B discovers that, pursuant to legislation, contracts

334:

enrichment. Its historical foundation of enrichment without cause can be traced back to the Corpus Iuris Civilis. While the concept of enrichment without cause was unknown in classical Roman law, Roman legal compilers eventually enunciated the principle of unjustified enrichment based on two actions

658:

only generate personal money awards: either a liquidated debt (as in actions for money had and received or money paid) or a sum assessed by a civil jury or the court itself (as in quantum meruit or quantum valebat). Scholars seeking to expand the explanatory power of unjust enrichment have argued

532:

and expressly endorsed by English courts. The framework provides a useful taxonomical function in Australian law, though, the concept of unjust enrichment has been subject to inconsistent treatment by Australian courts, as discussed below. Stated at this level of abstraction, the framework is a

1054:), a representative plaintiff who recovers a "common fund" for the benefit of all represented plaintiffs (absent class members) may recover attorney fees from the fund, preventing enrichment of the absent plaintiffs at the expense of the representative plaintiff. This is an exception to the " 842:

The concept of deprivation and enrichment are extremely broad. Deprivation refers to any loss of money or money's worth in the form of contribution while A is enriched if B contributes to the acquisition of assets in A's name. The causal connection between enrichment and deprivation must be

471:

at the turn of the 20th century began to rationalise these disparate actions into a coherent body of law. The principle said to underlie these actions was eventually recognized as unjust enrichment. Subsequent scholarship has sought to expand the explanatory power of the principle of unjust

672:

Imagine that A commits a wrong against B and B sues in respect of that wrong. A will certainly be liable to pay compensation to B. If B seeks compensation then the court award will be measured by reference to the loss that B has suffered as a result of A's wrongful act. However, in certain

1552:

of such implied promise and undertaking; and he will be made to repair the owner in damages, equivalent to what he has detained in such violation of his promise. This is a very extensive and beneficial remedy, applicable to almost every case where the defendant has received money which

662:

In Australian law, actions derived from the common money counts continue to generate only personal remedies. The doctrinal basis of subrogation is not unsettled: it has nothing to do with unjust enrichment. Claims to traceable substitutes are a part of the law of property, not unjust

635:: the restoration of what was conferred to the claimant. In short, the correcting of the injustice that occurred when the claimant suffered a subtraction of wealth and the defendant received a corresponding benefit. Restitution can take the form of a personal or a proprietary remedy. 762:

the plurality held that the concept of unjust enrichment was effectively 'inconsistent' with the law of restitution as it had developed in Australia. It is worth noting that the analytic framework had been expressly endorsed by the High Court just two years before in

1078: 711:(see above). The law responds to each of them by imposing an obligation to pay compensatory damages. Restitution for wrongs is the subject which deals with the issue of when exactly the law also responds by imposing an obligation to make restitution. 580:

typically adopt the "unjust factor" approach. In this analysis, the claimant must point to a positive reason why the defendant's enrichment is unjust. Examples of "unjust factors" that ground a claim for restitution include: mistakes of fact or law;

407:, which doesn't allow a privileged party, and in the principle of commutative justice. Thus it manages apply to the entire law on propriety and contract. It had, for example, a strong influence on the reflexions regarding contracts of prostitution. 913:— that is available to take away an enrichment that lacks an adequate legal basis. A claim of restitution for unjust enrichment “results from a transaction that the law treats as ineffective to work a conclusive alteration in ownership rights.” 1121:(2020), the Supreme Court held that restitution (usually called “disgorgement” in U.S. securities law) is available for violations of federal securities law because the SEC is authorized to seek “equitable relief” under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). 354:, the plaintiff bore the burden of specifying the cause for his demand, namely, demanding the restitution of assets that had exited the plaintiff's patrimony and entered the defendant’s patrimony through the acts of the defendant’s servants. 613:

typically adopt an "absence of basis" approach. On this analysis, the defendant is obliged to make restitution if there is no "basis" for his receipt: for example, because the contract under which the defendant received the benefit was void

1087: 1035:” to the owner of the patent. Later, recovery for either damages or profits was codified in statute. The Supreme Court identified recovery of profits under the Copyright Act as a form of equitable relief for “unjust enrichment” in 649:

is awarded, the court recognises (or declares) that the defendant has a beneficial or security interest in specific property of the defendant. Whether proprietary remedies can be awarded depends on the jurisdiction in question.

1009: 2139:§ 44(3) ("Restitution by the rule of this section will be limited or denied (a) if the court would refuse to enjoin the interference, assuming timely application and an absence of procedural or administrative obstacles; . 838:

To establish unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff needs to show: (i) enrichment; (ii) deprivation; (iii) causal connection between enrichment and deprivation; and (iv) absence of juristic justification for the enrichment.

2006:,scrollChunk:!n,searchQuery:'unjust%20enrichment%20in%20canada',searchSortBy:RELEVANCE,tab:search)) "The Emergence of Unjust Enrichment as a Cause of Action and the Remedy of Constructive Trust, 1988 CanLIIDocs 93" 556:

A conceptual split, albeit one not necessarily coextensive with the common law - civil distinction, is between systems based on an "unjust factor" approach and systems based on an "absence of basis" approach.

747:

the concept of unjust enrichment was expressly endorsed by the High Court of Australia. This was subsequently followed in numerous first instance and appellate decisions, as well as by the High Court itself.

297:

from contrary equitable title. Liability for an unjust enrichment arises irrespective of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient, though it may affect available remedies. And restitution can also be ordered

357:

The coherent concept of unjustified enrichment then appeared in the Justinian Code, based on Roman pragmatism with equitable considerations and moral principles of Greek philosophy. In the Justinian Code,

1164:

case in which the tortfeasor has made a profit that exceeds the victim's damages." (The Third Restatement puts further qualifications, including that restitution for wrongs is not available where an

1091:, 534 U.S. 204 (2002), the Supreme Court noted that legal restitution and equitable restitution are not historically identical, and so it held that legal restitution is not covered by a provision of 350:

authorized recovery by the plaintiff of a certain object or money in the hands of the defendant. The defendant was considered a borrower who was charged with returning the object or money. For the

659:

that other areas of the law such as subrogation and claims to traceable substitutes form part of the law of unjust enrichment. This view has been accepted, though its implications remain unclear.

545:

Generally speaking, the mere receipt of a benefit from another is unobjectionable and does not attract legal consequences. The exception is where such receipt is "unjust" or "unjustified". Both

1069: 920:(1937), advocate for treating restitution as a unified and cohesive body of law, rather than a muddled variety of miscellaneous legal and equitable claims, remedies, and doctrines such as 2004: 1020:

for mistaken improvements to land (i.e., when the person improving the land later learns that he did not own the land), citing the Latin maxim against enrichment at another's detriment.

961:

with a single civil action. This has, to some extent, blurred differences between legal and equitable restitution, and obscured awareness of legal restitution's origin in the action of

676:

Whether or not a claimant can seek restitution for a wrong depends to a large extent on the particular wrong in question. For example, in English law, restitution for breach of

872:

In Scotland, the law developed in a piecemeal fashion through the twentieth century, culminating in three pivotal cases in the late 1990s. The most crucial of these was

418:, formed the respective origins of the modern French and German law on unjustified enrichment. Domat developed the French unjustified enrichment principles based on the 953:(1938), restitution is mostly determined by the law of each state and territory. However, it can also be a remedy under federal law. Also in 1938, the enactment of the 1025: 833: 1046: 306:

historically occurred when first filing a suit). This may be treated as a distinct basis for restitution, or it may be treated as a subset of unjust enrichment.

1073:, 295 U.S. 301 (1935). However, the Court therefore noted that equitable defenses are available where it would not be fair to require the money to be returned. 1138: 1060: 1029:, 56 U.S. 546 (1854), the Supreme Court held that a patent-owner could sue in equity for an infringer’s profits, saying that the ill-gotten profits belonged “ 1108:

for breach of an interstate water-sharing agreement with Kansas. The majority cited the Third Restatement to support the availability of restitution for “

1100: 642:

is awarded, the defendant is ordered to pay the money value of the benefit received. This personal money award is the typical form of restitution ordered.

654:

In English law, the orthodox view is that unjust enrichment generally triggers personal, rather than proprietary remedies. This is because the law of

1067:

Restitution is available in equity to recover money previously paid to satisfy a court judgment that is later reversed, as the Supreme Court held in

313:, which is a legal concept referring to the enjoyment of an amount of wealth by a person that is not justified by reference to their lawful income. 1004: 1420:, refers to general notions of fairness tempering harsh rules, whereas the latter refers to the particular jurisprudence developed in the English 1092: 991:(three "common counts" for legal restitution). (The decision focused on other questions, including whether the case should have been brought in 2049: 782:, which has ruled that unjust enrichment is a general principle of law. The Court has stated that the legal basis for unjust enrichment is 2135:. is liable in restitution as necessary to prevent unjust enrichment, unless competing legal objectives make liability inappropriate."); 208: 1117: 3352: 738:

Whether there is a distinct body of law in Australia known as the law of unjust enrichment is a highly controversial question. In

3440: 1544:

that the person so receiving promised and undertook to account for it to the true proprietor. And, if he unjustly detains it, an

1037: 1064:(1885), the court held that the representative plaintiff could not, however, recover a salary for the time spent litigating. 2176: 1221: 1199: 861:

rapidly developed during the second half of the 20th century. It has been heavily influenced by the writings of jurists from

459:) claims giving rise to a personal liability to pay the money value of a benefit received from another. Legal scholars from 1366: 383:

gradually expanded to cover instances in which third parties were enriched at the expense of the impoverished obligee, and

1597: 1016:, a prominent early American jurist (and author of influential treatises on equity), held that recovery was available in 2127:

R3RUE § 44(1) ("A person who obtains a benefit by conscious interference with a claimant's legally protected interests .

1734: 1126: 1055: 740: 2083: 751:

Considerable skepticism about the utility of the concept of unjust enrichment has been expressed in recent years. The

2778: 2235: 1805: 17: 2892: 2761: 954: 852: 3430: 3347: 2694: 2595: 594: 201: 1141:

held that equitable restitution is available for a practice known as "objector blackmail," where objectors to a

832:

The doctrine of unjust enrichment was definitively established as a fully fledged course of action in Canada in

2854: 2488: 1481:(LexisNexis, 2nd ed, 2008). On unjust enrichment as a 'unifying legal concept', see the judgment of Deane J in 2207: 1850: 1360: 949: 858: 525: 442: 285:

Where an individual is unjustly enriched, modern common law imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make

1416:. (To distinguish the two, these synonyms are used instead.) The former meaning of equity, originating from 3014: 2493: 1938: 1821: 1740: 1391: 779: 31: 1883: 1755: 756: 3009: 1931: 764: 744: 1438: 3425: 2984: 2483: 1050:

105 U.S. 527 (1881), the Supreme Court held that, in a representative suit in equity (later known as a

415: 194: 472:

enrichment and it is now often said (albeit not without controversy) to encompass both common law and

3067: 126: 2862: 2844: 1564: 721: 602: 582: 577: 546: 327: 240: 3196: 3237: 3024: 2513: 2498: 1442: 975: 893: 866: 770:. For the moment, the concept of unjust enrichment appears to serve only a taxonomical function. 464: 3292: 3277: 2168:

Theologians and Contract Law : The Moral Transformation of the Ius commune (ca. 1500-1650)

2073:

Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, §1, comment b (Discussion Draft 2000)

1560: 1529: 1434: 1293: 1244: 1182: 980: 941: 261: 1536:

given on the receiver's part: for the law construes this to be money had and received for the

813:

a person alleging unjust enrichment may not simultaneously do so for benevolent intervention (

3435: 3396: 2989: 2667: 2478: 1371: 1278: 1023:

Federal patent and copyright law has long allowed recovery for either damages or profits. In

586: 239:("By natural law it is just that no one should be enriched by another's loss or injury"). In 68: 410:

The interpretations of Roman law principles on unjustified enrichment, by the French jurist

254:

In pre-modern English common law, restitutionary claims were often brought in an action for

3445: 3117: 2463: 1545: 862: 460: 303: 177: 157: 111: 778:

The reception of unjust enrichment into Belgian law has been upheld multiple times by the

8: 3272: 2412: 2329: 1641: 1533: 396: 294: 131: 897:(2011) (“R3RUE”) states that unjust enrichment is a body of legal obligations under the 400: 3087: 2746: 2600: 2585: 2563: 2307: 2287: 2240: 2230: 1549: 1494: 1445:. As such, there is no “Second Restatement on Restitution,” except as abandoned drafts. 1327: 1322: 1105: 937: 929: 626: 533:

useful grounding for comparative study between common law and civil law jurisdictions.

468: 310: 290: 237:

Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimentum et injuria fieri locupletiorem

231:

This principle derives from late Roman law, as stated in the Latin maxim attributed to

162: 121: 116: 73: 63: 264:. The seminal case giving a general theory for when restitution would be available is 3072: 2994: 2832: 2575: 2570: 2523: 2448: 2442: 2282: 2200: 2172: 1801: 1572: 1332: 1217: 1195: 815: 618:. Some common law systems have shown signs of a possible shift towards this approach. 427: 362:

were grouped into categories, such as when the plaintiff had given a thing or money:

275: 270: 83: 1412:

Both "conscience" and "chancery" as used here would more commonly be referred to as

1058:" that litigants must pay their own attorney fees (absent statutory exceptions). In 3077: 3044: 2543: 2407: 2402: 2367: 2115: 1555: 1421: 1316: 1306: 1287: 1161: 1109: 1031: 988: 925: 755:

basis for the action for money had and received has instead been emphasised and in

569: 232: 97: 78: 58: 1694:

See Christos Filios, H Aitia Stis Enochikes Symvaseis 30, 101–25 (2007) (Greece).

484:

Cases of unjust (or unjustified) enrichment can be examined in the following way:

3326: 3299: 3287: 3267: 3201: 3179: 3159: 3154: 3134: 2999: 2979: 2974: 2877: 2837: 2548: 2473: 2397: 2382: 2302: 2107: 1568: 1209: 590: 387:

was recognized as a source of obligations under the heading of "quasi-contract".

152: 1853:, whether there is a distinct "correspondence principle". See generally, Virgo, 1079:

Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States

553:

legal systems have bodies of law providing remedies to reverse such enrichment.

3403: 3211: 3129: 2718: 2684: 2635: 2620: 2392: 2297: 2277: 2267: 1381: 1299: 1283: 1267: 1157: 1104:, 574 U.S. 445 (2015), the Supreme Court ordered restitution by Nebraska as an 984: 958: 933: 921: 677: 655: 610: 452: 265: 88: 274:(1760), which imported into the common law notions of conscience from English 3419: 3257: 3216: 3102: 3082: 3054: 3004: 2969: 2943: 2938: 2931: 2882: 2822: 2662: 2652: 2610: 2533: 2528: 2458: 2417: 2341: 1541: 1507:

Nam hoc natura aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento fieri locupletiorem

1271: 992: 684:

is fairly exceptional. The wrong could be of any one of the following types:

606: 573: 536: 167: 3389: 3139: 3107: 3062: 2800: 2795: 2766: 2679: 2657: 2625: 2558: 2538: 2432: 2372: 2362: 2314: 2272: 2250: 2193: 1413: 1386: 1286:

for asserting a quasi-contract in common law, especially by asserting the "

1146: 1142: 1051: 1017: 1013: 910: 902: 885: 783: 752: 473: 456: 40: 1518:

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 3, *162 ("A

3311: 3252: 3242: 3039: 3034: 2872: 2773: 2689: 2648: 2615: 2580: 2503: 2427: 2377: 2292: 1498: 1376: 947:

Because the common law is mostly governed by state law, especially after

632: 565: 529: 404: 403:, the prohibition of unjustified enrichment finds directly his source in 286: 172: 136: 2166: 1145:

settlement drop their objections on behalf of the class in return for a

3375: 3304: 3184: 3122: 2867: 2788: 2783: 2741: 2723: 2711: 2672: 2518: 2508: 2468: 2453: 2437: 2387: 2324: 2319: 1917: 1165: 996: 898: 561: 550: 448: 411: 224:

is the field of law relating to gains-based recovery. In contrast with

106: 3282: 3247: 3189: 3164: 3029: 2926: 2914: 2899: 2887: 2815: 2733: 2706: 2590: 1628: 1537: 1524: 1417: 1352: 962: 256: 3370: 793:

According to the Court, five elements constitute unjust enrichment:

627:

Remedies for unjust enrichment: personal and proprietary restitution

3331: 3316: 3019: 2904: 2701: 2245: 1646:

The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition

1347: 1342: 681: 1618:

Michael Stathopoulos, Axiosis Adikaiologitou Ploutismou 2 (1972).

3221: 3169: 3149: 3097: 2909: 2827: 2643: 2605: 2553: 957:

merged procedures for law and equity and replaced the common-law

225: 48: 1703:

See 1 Max Kaser, Das Römische Privatrecht § 139.3 (2d ed. 1971).

1652: 1160:

held that restitution for wrongs is generally "available in any

278:. Blackstone's Commentaries also endorsed this approach, citing 3321: 3174: 2919: 2810: 2805: 2751: 2422: 451:, the historical core of the law of unjust enrichment lies in 369:

for a reason disapproved by law or repugnant to public policy;

3262: 3206: 3112: 2953: 2756: 2255: 1567:, or through imposition, extortion, or oppression, or where 3144: 3092: 2948: 2346: 2262: 2171:. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 723. 906: 803:

a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment;

689: 2216: 1676: 1664: 1849:

Note that it remains a controversial point, at least in

1179:

Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment

1088:

Great-West Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Knudson

894:

Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment

884:

For restitution sought by U.S. regulatory agencies, see

422:, as well as a modified version of the Roman concept of 366:

in contemplation of a future result that did not follow;

1437:

did not publish a new volume on restitution during its

1061:

Central Railroad & Banking Co. of Georgia v. Pettus

2185: 27:

Legal remedy taking away a benefit wrongfully obtained

1469:(Sweet & Maxwell, 8th ed, 2011); Graham Virgo, 834:

Pettkus v. Becker, 1980 CanLII 22 (SCC), 2 SCR 834

372:

by mistake because payment was not actually due; or

330:systems, unjust enrichment is often referred to as 1910: 1192:Restitution and Unjust Enrichment: Cases and Notes 1168:to prevent the tort would have been inequitable.) 680:is widely available but restitution for breach of 524:These questions are a familiar part of the modern 30:"Restitution" redirects here. For other uses, see 1800:(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1479:Mason & Carter's Restitution Law in Australia 3417: 1171: 2084:"The Intellectual History of Unjust Enrichment" 999:the court could take notice of certain facts.) 916:The Third Restatement and its predecessor, the 869:. England adopts the "unjust factor" approach. 1559:he ought to refund. It lies for money paid by 1189: 2201: 1477:(3rd ed, 2011); Mason, Carter, and Tolhurst, 430:is a particularly well suited remedial tool. 309:Unjust enrichment is not to be confused with 202: 1274:that mostly evolved into modern restitution 1214:Restitution: Liability for Unjust Enrichment 528:, having been popularised by the writing of 1154:Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity 447:In systems of law derived from the English 299: 2208: 2194: 1999: 1997: 1995: 1993: 1991: 1989: 1640: 1208: 455:. These were common law (as distinct from 375:without a good reason for the transaction. 209: 195: 2112:The Scope and Significance of Restitution 1898:Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio 1467:Goff & Jones Law of Unjust Enrichment 1118:Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission 667: 3353:History of the American legal profession 1718:The Principles of the Law of Restitution 1714:An Introduction to English Legal History 1595: 1571:is taken of the plaintiff's situation. 1471:The Principles of the Law of Restitution 1254:A Treatise on the Law of Quasi-Contracts 1986: 1598:"Demystifying Enrichment Without Cause" 1339:Other parts of the law of obligations: 1190:Kull, Andrew; Farnsworth, Ward (2018). 1038:Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. 14: 3418: 2164: 2050:"Shaping the law of unjust enrichment" 1682: 1670: 1658: 1251: 1230: 1156:, 366 F.3d 569 (7th Cir. 2004), Judge 302:(also called "waiver of tort" because 2189: 1795: 1070:Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Florida 973:One early case in the Supreme Court, 541:: unjust factors vs. absence of basis 1855:Principles of the Law of Restitution 1631:, DAS ALTRÖMISCHE JUS 286–88 (1949). 1591: 1589: 1587: 1585: 1583: 1581: 1367:Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley 1256:. New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co. 1149:in excess of the rest of the class. 1137:, 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020), the 631:The remedy for unjust enrichment is 1769:See, e.g., Mitchell and Watterson, 1565:consideration which happens to fail 1532:of another's, without any valuable 1095:authorizing only equitable relief. 968: 859:law of unjust enrichment in England 728: 243:systems, it is also referred to as 24: 1127:AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC 335:of the classical Roman period—the 25: 3457: 2337:Restitution and unjust enrichment 1940:Lampson v Fortescue Metals (No 3) 1823:Lampson v Fortescue Metals (No 3) 1578: 1235:. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 846: 222:Restitution and unjust enrichment 3384: 3383: 3369: 2037:Commerzbank v Gareth Price-Jones 1720:(3rd ed, 2015); Andrew Burrows, 1473:(3rd ed, 2015); Andrew Burrows, 1359:Leading scholars on the English 955:Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 879: 853:Unjust enrichment in English law 526:English law of unjust enrichment 3348:History of the legal profession 2121: 2101: 2076: 2067: 2042: 2039:EWCA Civ 1663 at (Mummery LJ). 2029: 1973: 1960: 1947: 1925: 1903: 1891: 1877: 1864: 1843: 1830: 1814: 1789: 1776: 1763: 1748: 1727: 1706: 1697: 1688: 1465:See generally: Mitchell et al, 1427: 1216:. University of Chicago Press. 3441:Legal doctrines and principles 1838:Deutsche Morgan Grenfell v IRC 1634: 1621: 1612: 1512: 1488: 1459: 1406: 979:(1795), was a suit at law for 583:total failure of consideration 520:are available to the claimant? 497:at the expense of the claimant 289:, subject to defences such as 13: 1: 1771:Subrogation: Law and Practice 1716:(4th edition); Graham Virgo, 1452: 1172:Books on American restitution 1012:(C.C.D. Maine 1841), Justice 950:Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 443:English unjust enrichment law 433: 1194:. New York: Wolters Kluwer. 758:Australian Financial v Hills 733: 479: 390: 321: 32:Restitution (disambiguation) 7: 1900:HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447. 1596:Davrados, Nikolaos (2018). 1261: 1252:Keener, William A. (1893). 10: 3462: 3015:International legal theory 2494:International slavery laws 2489:International human rights 2484:International criminal law 2158: 1912:"Attorney General v Blake" 1736:Pavey & Mathews v Paul 1661:, p. 512 and 570-571. 1483:Pavey & Mathews v Paul 1392:Professor Charles Mitchell 1241:Restatement of Restitution 1231:Palmer, George E. (1978). 995:and whether in deciding a 918:Restatement on Restitution 883: 850: 773: 741:Pavey & Mathews v Paul 509:Does the defendant have a 416:Friedrich Carl von Savigny 316: 29: 3363: 3340: 3230: 3068:Administration of justice 3053: 2962: 2853: 2732: 2634: 2355: 2223: 1872:Bank of Cyprus v Menelaou 1857:(3rd ed, 2015); Burrows, 1548:lies against him for the 1319:for restitution include: 827: 605:systems such as those of 564:systems such as those of 260:and later in a claim for 2845:Basic structure doctrine 2695:Natural and legal rights 2576:Public international law 1966:Cass. 7 September 2001, 1953:Cass. 17 November 1983, 1784:Bank of Cyprus v Menelou 1742:Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale 1399: 1382:Professor Andrew Burrows 1361:law of unjust enrichment 722:Attorney General v Blake 245:enrichment without cause 3025:Principle of typicality 2499:International trade law 2215: 1979:Cass. 19 January 2009, 1540:of the owner only; and 1135:Pearson v. Target Corp. 1026:Livingston v. Woodworth 806:an absence of a basis ( 3431:Civil law (common law) 1722:The Law of Restitution 1712:See generally: Baker, 1530:had and received money 1501:, 50.17.206; see also 1475:The Law of Restitution 1435:American Law Institute 1387:Professor Graham Virgo 1372:Professor Gareth Jones 1294:Money had and received 1245:American Law Institute 1233:The Law of Restitution 1183:American Law Institute 981:money had and received 942:money had and received 707:Note that 1–5 are all 668:Restitution for wrongs 414:and the German jurist 385:unjustified enrichment 293:and the protection of 262:money had and received 249:unjustified enrichment 3020:Principle of legality 2779:Delegated legislation 2479:Intellectual property 1796:Birks, Peter (2005). 1377:Professor Peter Birks 1279:Indebitatus assumpsit 1047:Trustees v. Greenough 530:Professor Peter Birks 420:actio de in rem verso 381:actio de in rem verso 352:actio de in rem verso 341:actio de in rem verso 69:Consequential damages 3238:Barristers' chambers 3180:Legal representation 3118:Justice of the peace 2464:Financial regulation 2165:Decock, Wim (2013). 2088:harvardlawreview.org 2014:. Alberta Law Review 1642:Zimmermann, Reinhard 1602:Louisiana Law Review 1110:opportunistic breach 905:— but separate from 819:) or undue payment ( 810:) of the enrichment; 700:A breach of contract 304:election of remedies 295:bona fide purchasers 158:Election of remedies 112:Specific performance 3273:Election commission 2985:Expressive function 2514:Landlord–tenant law 2413:Consumer protection 1885:Bofinger v Kingsway 1757:Bofinger v Kingsway 1648:. pp. 878–884. 1522:species of implied 1485:(1987) 162 CLR 221. 697:An equitable wrong 502:Was the enrichment 495:Was the enrichment 397:School of Salamanca 3231:Legal institutions 3098:Lawsuit/Litigation 3088:Dispute resolution 2893:Catholic canon law 2601:State of emergency 2564:Will and testament 2288:Law of obligations 2241:Constitutional law 2231:Administrative law 2118:1277, 1278 (1989). 2054:Oxford Law Faculty 1933:Equuscorp v Haxton 1859:Law of Restitution 1685:, p. 502-505. 1673:, p. 507-508. 1546:action on the case 1328:Constructive trust 1323:Account of profits 1317:Equitable remedies 1101:Kansas v. Nebraska 938:constructive trust 930:account of profits 800:an impoverishment; 780:Court of Cassation 766:Equuscorp v Haxton 745:(1987) 162 CLR 221 647:proprietary remedy 488:Was the defendant 311:illicit enrichment 291:change of position 178:Declaratory relief 163:Provisional remedy 122:Account of profits 117:Constructive trust 98:Equitable remedies 74:Liquidated damages 64:Incidental damages 3426:Unjust enrichment 3413: 3412: 3073:Constitutionalism 2995:Law and economics 2833:Act of parliament 2571:Product liability 2524:Legal archaeology 2449:Environmental law 2443:Entertainment law 2283:International law 2178:978-90-04-23285-3 1798:Unjust enrichment 1333:Equitable tracing 1282:, the historical 1223:978-0-226-14402-3 1201:978-1-5438-0090-6 1008:, 4 F. Cas. 127, 874:Shilliday v Smith 816:negotiorum gestio 703:Criminal offences 694:A common law tort 428:Equitable tracing 271:Moses v Macferlan 219: 218: 84:Statutory damages 41:Judicial remedies 18:Unjust enrichment 16:(Redirected from 3453: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3374: 3373: 3197:Question of fact 3078:Criminal justice 2408:Construction law 2403:Conflict of laws 2368:Agricultural law 2210: 2203: 2196: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2119: 2105: 2099: 2098: 2096: 2095: 2080: 2074: 2071: 2065: 2064: 2062: 2061: 2046: 2040: 2033: 2027: 2024: 2021: 2019: 2001: 1984: 1977: 1971: 1964: 1958: 1951: 1945: 1929: 1923: 1922: 1914: 1907: 1901: 1895: 1889: 1881: 1875: 1868: 1862: 1847: 1841: 1834: 1828: 1818: 1812: 1811: 1793: 1787: 1780: 1774: 1767: 1761: 1752: 1746: 1731: 1725: 1710: 1704: 1701: 1695: 1692: 1686: 1680: 1674: 1668: 1662: 1656: 1650: 1649: 1638: 1632: 1625: 1619: 1616: 1610: 1609: 1593: 1576: 1556:ex aequo et bono 1528:is when one has 1521: 1516: 1510: 1492: 1486: 1463: 1446: 1431: 1425: 1422:courts of equity 1410: 1307:Quantum valebant 1257: 1248: 1243:. St. Paul, MN: 1236: 1227: 1210:Farnsworth, Ward 1205: 1186: 1181:. St. Paul, MN: 1162:intentional-tort 1106:equitable remedy 1032:ex aequo et bono 989:quantum valebant 976:Bingham v. Cabot 969:Federal case law 944:, and so forth. 926:quantum valebant 821:solutio indebiti 729:National systems 709:causative events 401:Tomás de Mercado 233:Sextus Pomponius 211: 204: 197: 79:Reliance damages 59:Punitive damages 47:Legal remedies ( 37: 36: 21: 3461: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3409: 3382: 3368: 3359: 3336: 3327:Political party 3300:Legal education 3288:Law enforcement 3268:Court of equity 3226: 3202:Question of law 3155:Practice of law 3135:Judicial review 3049: 3000:Legal formalism 2980:Comparative law 2975:Contract theory 2958: 2878:Legal pluralism 2849: 2838:Act of Congress 2762:Executive order 2728: 2630: 2549:Nationality law 2474:Immigration law 2398:Competition law 2351: 2219: 2214: 2179: 2161: 2156: 2155: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2132: 2128: 2126: 2122: 2108:Douglas Laycock 2106: 2102: 2093: 2091: 2082: 2081: 2077: 2072: 2068: 2059: 2057: 2048: 2047: 2043: 2034: 2030: 2017: 2015: 2003: 2002: 1987: 1978: 1974: 1965: 1961: 1952: 1948: 1930: 1926: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1896: 1892: 1882: 1878: 1869: 1865: 1861:(3rd ed, 2010). 1848: 1844: 1835: 1831: 1819: 1815: 1808: 1794: 1790: 1781: 1777: 1768: 1764: 1753: 1749: 1732: 1728: 1724:(3rd ed, 2011). 1711: 1707: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1689: 1681: 1677: 1669: 1665: 1657: 1653: 1639: 1635: 1626: 1622: 1617: 1613: 1594: 1579: 1569:undue advantage 1519: 1517: 1513: 1493: 1489: 1464: 1460: 1455: 1450: 1449: 1432: 1428: 1411: 1407: 1402: 1343:Law of contract 1264: 1239: 1224: 1202: 1177: 1174: 1147:private payment 1139:Seventh Circuit 1112:” of contract. 971: 959:forms of action 889: 882: 855: 849: 830: 776: 736: 731: 670: 640:personal remedy 629: 591:undue influence 543: 537:The meaning of 482: 436: 393: 324: 319: 268:'s decision in 215: 153:Adequate remedy 35: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3459: 3449: 3448: 3443: 3438: 3433: 3428: 3411: 3410: 3408: 3407: 3400: 3393: 3379: 3376:Law portal 3364: 3361: 3360: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3344: 3342: 3338: 3337: 3335: 3334: 3329: 3324: 3319: 3314: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3285: 3280: 3275: 3270: 3265: 3260: 3255: 3250: 3245: 3240: 3234: 3232: 3228: 3227: 3225: 3224: 3219: 3214: 3212:Trial advocacy 3209: 3204: 3199: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3187: 3182: 3177: 3172: 3167: 3162: 3152: 3147: 3142: 3137: 3132: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3120: 3110: 3105: 3100: 3095: 3090: 3085: 3080: 3075: 3070: 3065: 3059: 3057: 3051: 3050: 3048: 3047: 3042: 3037: 3032: 3027: 3022: 3017: 3012: 3007: 3002: 2997: 2992: 2987: 2982: 2977: 2972: 2966: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2957: 2956: 2951: 2946: 2941: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2917: 2912: 2907: 2902: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2880: 2875: 2870: 2865: 2859: 2857: 2851: 2850: 2848: 2847: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2835: 2830: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2808: 2803: 2798: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2786: 2781: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2764: 2759: 2749: 2744: 2742:Ballot measure 2738: 2736: 2730: 2729: 2727: 2726: 2721: 2719:Legal treatise 2716: 2715: 2714: 2709: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2687: 2685:Letters patent 2682: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2665: 2660: 2655: 2646: 2640: 2638: 2636:Sources of law 2632: 2631: 2629: 2628: 2623: 2621:Unenforced law 2618: 2613: 2608: 2603: 2598: 2593: 2588: 2583: 2578: 2573: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2561: 2551: 2546: 2541: 2536: 2531: 2526: 2521: 2516: 2511: 2506: 2501: 2496: 2491: 2486: 2481: 2476: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2456: 2451: 2446: 2440: 2435: 2430: 2425: 2420: 2415: 2410: 2405: 2400: 2395: 2393:Commercial law 2390: 2385: 2380: 2375: 2370: 2365: 2359: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2350: 2349: 2344: 2339: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2322: 2317: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2305: 2295: 2290: 2285: 2280: 2275: 2270: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2248: 2243: 2238: 2233: 2227: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2213: 2212: 2205: 2198: 2190: 2184: 2183: 2177: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2120: 2100: 2090:. 3 April 2020 2075: 2066: 2041: 2028: 1985: 1972: 1959: 1957:1983-84, 2982. 1946: 1924: 1902: 1890: 1876: 1863: 1842: 1829: 1813: 1806: 1788: 1775: 1773:(2nd Edition). 1762: 1747: 1726: 1705: 1696: 1687: 1675: 1663: 1651: 1633: 1620: 1611: 1577: 1511: 1487: 1457: 1456: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1426: 1404: 1403: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1389: 1384: 1379: 1374: 1369: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1345: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1330: 1325: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1303: 1300:Quantum meruit 1296: 1284:form of action 1268:Quasi-contract 1263: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1249: 1237: 1228: 1222: 1206: 1200: 1187: 1173: 1170: 1158:Richard Posner 1005:Bright v. Boyd 985:quantum meruit 970: 967: 934:quasi-contract 922:quantum meruit 881: 878: 851:Main article: 848: 847:United Kingdom 845: 829: 826: 825: 824: 811: 804: 801: 798: 797:an enrichment; 775: 772: 735: 732: 730: 727: 717: 716: 705: 704: 701: 698: 695: 692: 678:fiduciary duty 669: 666: 665: 664: 660: 656:quasi-contract 628: 625: 620: 619: 600: 542: 535: 522: 521: 514: 507: 500: 493: 481: 478: 453:quasi-contract 435: 432: 399:members, like 392: 389: 377: 376: 373: 370: 367: 323: 320: 318: 315: 266:Lord Mansfield 217: 216: 214: 213: 206: 199: 191: 188: 187: 186: 185: 180: 175: 170: 165: 160: 155: 147: 146: 145:Related issues 142: 141: 140: 139: 134: 129: 124: 119: 114: 109: 101: 100: 94: 93: 92: 91: 89:Treble damages 86: 81: 76: 71: 66: 61: 53: 52: 44: 43: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3458: 3447: 3444: 3442: 3439: 3437: 3434: 3432: 3429: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3421: 3406: 3405: 3401: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3392: 3391: 3380: 3378: 3377: 3372: 3366: 3365: 3362: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3346: 3345: 3343: 3339: 3333: 3330: 3328: 3325: 3323: 3320: 3318: 3315: 3313: 3310: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3298: 3294: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3286: 3284: 3281: 3279: 3276: 3274: 3271: 3269: 3266: 3264: 3261: 3259: 3258:Civil society 3256: 3254: 3251: 3249: 3246: 3244: 3241: 3239: 3236: 3235: 3233: 3229: 3223: 3220: 3218: 3217:Trier of fact 3215: 3213: 3210: 3208: 3205: 3203: 3200: 3198: 3195: 3191: 3188: 3186: 3183: 3181: 3178: 3176: 3173: 3171: 3168: 3166: 3163: 3161: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3151: 3148: 3146: 3143: 3141: 3138: 3136: 3133: 3131: 3128: 3124: 3121: 3119: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3106: 3104: 3103:Legal opinion 3101: 3099: 3096: 3094: 3091: 3089: 3086: 3084: 3083:Court-martial 3081: 3079: 3076: 3074: 3071: 3069: 3066: 3064: 3061: 3060: 3058: 3056: 3055:Jurisprudence 3052: 3046: 3043: 3041: 3038: 3036: 3033: 3031: 3028: 3026: 3023: 3021: 3018: 3016: 3013: 3011: 3008: 3006: 3003: 3001: 2998: 2996: 2993: 2991: 2988: 2986: 2983: 2981: 2978: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2968: 2967: 2965: 2961: 2955: 2952: 2950: 2947: 2945: 2944:Statutory law 2942: 2940: 2939:Socialist law 2937: 2933: 2932:Byzantine law 2930: 2929: 2928: 2925: 2921: 2918: 2916: 2913: 2911: 2908: 2906: 2903: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883:Religious law 2881: 2879: 2876: 2874: 2871: 2869: 2866: 2864: 2861: 2860: 2858: 2856: 2855:Legal systems 2852: 2846: 2843: 2839: 2836: 2834: 2831: 2829: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823:Statutory law 2821: 2817: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2809: 2807: 2804: 2802: 2799: 2797: 2794: 2790: 2787: 2785: 2782: 2780: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2760: 2758: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2750: 2748: 2745: 2743: 2740: 2739: 2737: 2735: 2731: 2725: 2722: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2710: 2708: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2688: 2686: 2683: 2681: 2678: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2666: 2664: 2661: 2659: 2656: 2654: 2653:Statutory law 2650: 2647: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2639: 2637: 2633: 2627: 2624: 2622: 2619: 2617: 2614: 2612: 2611:Transport law 2609: 2607: 2604: 2602: 2599: 2597: 2594: 2592: 2589: 2587: 2584: 2582: 2579: 2577: 2574: 2572: 2569: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2550: 2547: 2545: 2542: 2540: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2529:Legal fiction 2527: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2497: 2495: 2492: 2490: 2487: 2485: 2482: 2480: 2477: 2475: 2472: 2470: 2467: 2465: 2462: 2460: 2459:Financial law 2457: 2455: 2452: 2450: 2447: 2444: 2441: 2439: 2436: 2434: 2431: 2429: 2426: 2424: 2421: 2419: 2418:Corporate law 2416: 2414: 2411: 2409: 2406: 2404: 2401: 2399: 2396: 2394: 2391: 2389: 2386: 2384: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2371: 2369: 2366: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2358: 2354: 2348: 2345: 2343: 2342:Statutory law 2340: 2338: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2323: 2321: 2318: 2316: 2313: 2309: 2306: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2296: 2294: 2291: 2289: 2286: 2284: 2281: 2279: 2276: 2274: 2271: 2269: 2266: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2247: 2244: 2242: 2239: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2229: 2228: 2226: 2224:Core subjects 2222: 2218: 2211: 2206: 2204: 2199: 2197: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2180: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2163: 2162: 2138: 2124: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2104: 2089: 2085: 2079: 2070: 2055: 2051: 2045: 2038: 2032: 2026: 2023: 2011: 2008: 2007: 2000: 1998: 1996: 1994: 1992: 1990: 1982: 1976: 1969: 1963: 1956: 1950: 1943: 1941: 1936: 1934: 1928: 1920: 1919: 1913: 1906: 1899: 1894: 1888: 1886: 1880: 1873: 1867: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1846: 1839: 1833: 1826: 1824: 1817: 1809: 1807:0-19-927697-8 1803: 1799: 1792: 1785: 1779: 1772: 1766: 1760: 1758: 1751: 1744: 1743: 1739:(Australia); 1738: 1737: 1730: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1709: 1700: 1691: 1684: 1679: 1672: 1667: 1660: 1655: 1647: 1643: 1637: 1630: 1624: 1615: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1592: 1590: 1588: 1586: 1584: 1582: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1534:consideration 1531: 1527: 1526: 1515: 1508: 1505:at 12.6.14 (" 1504: 1500: 1496: 1491: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1462: 1458: 1444: 1440: 1439:second series 1436: 1430: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1409: 1405: 1393: 1390: 1388: 1385: 1383: 1380: 1378: 1375: 1373: 1370: 1368: 1365: 1364: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353:Law of trusts 1351: 1349: 1346: 1344: 1341: 1340: 1338: 1334: 1331: 1329: 1326: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1318: 1315: 1309: 1308: 1304: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1295: 1292: 1291: 1289: 1288:common counts 1285: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1275: 1273: 1272:legal fiction 1269: 1266: 1265: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1197: 1193: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1129: 1128: 1122: 1120: 1119: 1113: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1096: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1083: 1081: 1080: 1074: 1072: 1071: 1065: 1063: 1062: 1057: 1056:American rule 1053: 1049: 1048: 1042: 1040: 1039: 1034: 1033: 1028: 1027: 1021: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1006: 1000: 998: 997:writ of error 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 977: 966: 964: 960: 956: 952: 951: 945: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 914: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 895: 887: 880:United States 877: 875: 870: 868: 864: 860: 854: 844: 840: 836: 835: 822: 818: 817: 812: 809: 805: 802: 799: 796: 795: 794: 791: 789: 785: 781: 771: 769: 767: 761: 759: 754: 749: 746: 743: 742: 726: 724: 723: 714: 713: 712: 710: 702: 699: 696: 693: 691: 687: 686: 685: 683: 679: 674: 661: 657: 653: 652: 651: 648: 643: 641: 636: 634: 624: 617: 612: 608: 604: 601: 598: 597: 592: 588: 584: 579: 578:United States 575: 571: 567: 563: 560: 559: 558: 554: 552: 548: 540: 534: 531: 527: 519: 515: 512: 508: 505: 501: 498: 494: 491: 487: 486: 485: 477: 475: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 445: 444: 440: 431: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 408: 406: 402: 398: 388: 386: 382: 379:Further, the 374: 371: 368: 365: 364: 363: 361: 355: 353: 349: 344: 342: 338: 333: 329: 314: 312: 307: 305: 301: 296: 292: 288: 283: 281: 277: 273: 272: 267: 263: 259: 258: 252: 250: 246: 242: 238: 234: 229: 227: 223: 212: 207: 205: 200: 198: 193: 192: 190: 189: 184: 181: 179: 176: 174: 171: 169: 166: 164: 161: 159: 156: 154: 151: 150: 149: 148: 144: 143: 138: 135: 133: 132:Rectification 130: 128: 125: 123: 120: 118: 115: 113: 110: 108: 105: 104: 103: 102: 99: 96: 95: 90: 87: 85: 82: 80: 77: 75: 72: 70: 67: 65: 62: 60: 57: 56: 55: 54: 50: 46: 45: 42: 39: 38: 33: 19: 3436:Contract law 3402: 3395: 3381: 3367: 3140:Jurisdiction 3108:Legal remedy 3063:Adjudication 2963:Legal theory 2801:Ratification 2796:Promulgation 2767:Proclamation 2747:Codification 2680:Human rights 2668:Divine right 2658:Constitution 2626:Women in law 2544:Military law 2539:Marriage law 2534:Maritime law 2433:Election law 2373:Aviation law 2363:Abortion law 2336: 2315:Property law 2251:Criminal law 2167: 2136: 2123: 2116:Tex. L. Rev. 2111: 2103: 2092:. Retrieved 2087: 2078: 2069: 2058:. Retrieved 2056:. 2015-08-25 2053: 2044: 2036: 2031: 2025: 2016:. Retrieved 2013: 2009: 2005: 1980: 1975: 1967: 1962: 1954: 1949: 1944:(Edelman J). 1939: 1932: 1927: 1916: 1905: 1897: 1893: 1884: 1879: 1871: 1866: 1858: 1854: 1845: 1837: 1832: 1827:(Edelman J). 1822: 1816: 1797: 1791: 1783: 1778: 1770: 1765: 1756: 1750: 1741: 1735: 1729: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1708: 1699: 1690: 1678: 1666: 1654: 1645: 1636: 1623: 1614: 1605: 1601: 1573:4 Burr. 1012 1554: 1523: 1514: 1506: 1502: 1490: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1461: 1443:restatements 1429: 1408: 1305: 1298: 1290:," such as: 1277: 1253: 1240: 1232: 1213: 1191: 1178: 1153: 1151: 1143:class action 1134: 1132: 1125: 1123: 1116: 1114: 1099: 1097: 1086: 1084: 1077: 1075: 1068: 1066: 1059: 1052:class action 1045: 1043: 1036: 1030: 1024: 1022: 1014:Joseph Story 1003: 1001: 974: 972: 948: 946: 917: 915: 911:contract law 892: 890: 886:disgorgement 873: 871: 856: 841: 837: 831: 820: 814: 807: 792: 787: 777: 765: 757: 750: 739: 737: 720: 718: 708: 706: 688:A statutory 675: 671: 646: 644: 639: 637: 630: 621: 615: 595: 555: 544: 538: 523: 517: 510: 503: 496: 489: 483: 446: 438: 437: 423: 419: 409: 394: 384: 380: 378: 360:condictiones 359: 356: 351: 347: 345: 340: 336: 331: 325: 308: 284: 279: 269: 255: 253: 248: 244: 236: 230: 221: 220: 182: 3446:Restitution 3312:Legislature 3243:Bureaucracy 3040:Rule of man 3035:Rule of law 3010:Libertarian 2873:Chinese law 2774:Legislation 2724:Regulations 2712:Law reports 2690:Natural law 2586:Reparations 2581:Refugee law 2504:Jurimetrics 2445:(Media law) 2383:Banking law 2378:Amnesty law 2356:Disciplines 2293:Private law 2035:See, e.g., 1968:Cah.dr.immo 1851:English law 1836:See, e.g., 1782:See, e.g., 1759:239 CLR 269 1754:See, e.g., 1733:See, e.g., 1683:Decock 2013 1671:Decock 2013 1659:Decock 2013 1348:Law of tort 663:enrichment. 633:restitution 405:natural law 332:unjustified 287:restitution 183:Restitution 173:Court costs 137:Subrogation 3420:Categories 3305:Law school 3185:Prosecutor 3123:Magistrate 2910:Jewish law 2868:Common law 2789:Rulemaking 2784:Regulation 2734:Law making 2673:Divine law 2649:Legal code 2596:Sports law 2519:Law of war 2469:Health law 2454:Family law 2438:Energy law 2388:Bankruptcy 2325:Punishment 2320:Public law 2094:2021-08-28 2060:2021-08-28 1918:LexisNexis 1745:(England). 1563:, or on a 1525:assumpsits 1453:References 1166:injunction 899:common law 808:sine causa 788:ius aequum 593:, and the 562:Common law 551:common law 449:common law 434:Common law 412:Jean Domat 300:for wrongs 127:Rescission 107:Injunction 3283:Judiciary 3278:Executive 3253:The bench 3190:Solicitor 3165:Barrister 3045:Sociology 3030:Pseudolaw 2970:Anarchist 2927:Roman law 2915:Parsi law 2900:Hindu law 2888:Canon law 2863:Civil law 2816:Concordat 2707:Precedent 2616:Trust law 2591:Space law 2428:Drugs law 2298:Procedure 2236:Civil law 1983:2012, 69. 1970:2002, 18. 1629:MAX KASER 1499:Justinian 1418:Aristotle 993:admiralty 963:assumpsit 867:Cambridge 753:equitable 734:Australia 616:ab initio 603:Civil law 570:Australia 480:Framework 474:equitable 465:Cambridge 457:equitable 391:Civil law 348:condictio 337:condictio 328:civil law 322:Roman law 257:assumpsit 241:civil law 3390:Category 3332:Tribunal 3317:Military 3160:Attorney 3130:Judgment 2990:Feminist 2905:Jain law 2702:Case law 2423:Cyberlaw 2330:Corporal 2308:Criminal 2278:Evidence 2268:Doctrine 2246:Contract 1942:WASC 162 1870:But see 1840:1 AC 558 1825:WASC 162 1644:(1990). 1262:See also 1212:(2014). 1041:(1940). 682:contract 645:Where a 638:Where a 596:Woolwich 576:and the 518:remedies 490:enriched 476:claims. 439:See also 395:For the 339:and the 276:chancery 3404:Outline 3341:History 3248:The bar 3222:Verdict 3170:Counsel 3150:Justice 3005:History 2828:Statute 2644:Charter 2606:Tax law 2554:Probate 2159:Sources 2018:July 3, 1874:UKSC 66 1786:UKSC 66 1561:mistake 1542:implies 1247:. 1937. 1185:. 2011. 774:Belgium 715:Example 611:Germany 599:ground. 566:England 511:defense 469:Harvard 317:History 226:damages 168:Tracing 49:Damages 3322:Police 3293:Agency 3175:Lawyer 2920:Sharia 2811:Treaty 2806:Repeal 2752:Decree 2663:Custom 2559:Estate 2509:Labour 2273:Equity 2175: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2133: 2129: 2012:CanLII 1887:HCA 44 1804: 1550:breach 1495:Digest 1414:equity 1270:, the 1220: 1198: 1018:equity 1010:132-34 987:, and 903:equity 863:Oxford 828:Canada 784:equity 760:HCA 14 607:France 587:duress 574:Canada 539:unjust 504:unjust 461:Oxford 3397:Index 3263:Court 3207:Trial 3113:Judge 2954:Yassa 2757:Edict 2303:Civil 2256:Crime 2114:, 67 1935:HCA 7 1520:third 1400:Notes 1093:ERISA 768:HCA 7 547:civil 516:What 424:causa 280:Moses 3145:Jury 3093:Fiqh 2949:Xeer 2347:Tort 2263:Deed 2173:ISBN 2020:2020 1981:RCJB 1820:See 1802:ISBN 1627:See 1433:The 1218:ISBN 1196:ISBN 909:and 907:tort 901:and 891:The 865:and 857:The 690:tort 609:and 549:and 467:and 346:The 2217:Law 2151:.") 2137:id. 1575:"). 1538:use 1509:"). 1503:id. 1497:of 1441:of 1152:In 1133:In 1124:In 1115:In 1098:In 1085:In 1076:In 1044:In 1002:In 790:). 719:In 326:In 247:or 3422:: 2651:/ 2110:, 2086:. 2052:. 2010:. 1988:^ 1955:RW 1937:; 1915:. 1606:78 1604:. 1600:. 1580:^ 1363:: 983:, 965:. 940:, 936:, 932:, 928:, 924:, 823:). 589:, 585:, 572:, 568:, 463:, 441:: 343:. 282:. 251:. 235:, 2209:e 2202:t 2195:v 2181:. 2147:. 2143:. 2131:. 2097:. 2063:. 2022:. 1921:. 1810:. 1608:. 1424:. 1226:. 1204:. 888:. 786:( 513:? 506:? 499:? 492:? 210:e 203:t 196:v 51:) 34:. 20:)

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