I’ve only very briefly skimmed the case. But what the ‘contract provided’, and therefore whether there was any room for restitution, would have surely depended on whether the agreement was that:
- Mr Barton was to receive £1.2 million if the property was sold for £6.5 million to a purchaser introduced by him
- Mr Barton was to receive £1.2 million only if the property was sold for £6.5 million to a purchaser introduced by him
- Mr Barton was to receive £1.2 million if and only if the property was sold for £6.5 million to a purchaser introduced by him
- Mr Barton was to receive payment if the property was sold for £6.5 million to a purchaser introduced by him
- Mr Barton was to receive payment only if the property was sold for £6.5 million to a purchaser introduced by him
- Mr Barton was to receive payment if and only if the property was sold for £6.5 million to a purchaser introduced by him
Unfortunately this was not unpacked all that clearly. Based on the result, it seems to me the majority must have decided either on 5. or 6. (despite the wording in the judgment sometimes indicating
the other formulations).
Best
Tim
From: Matthew Hoyle <MHoyle@oeclaw.co.uk>
Sent: 31 January 2023 16:15
To: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>; obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Re: The Laws of Restitution
Nothing in the book would change the result in Barton if it were accepted. It’s a contract case all the way down.
The claimant rendered his performance on the basis of the terms of the contract, which was at all times valid and effective. Either the contract provided for payment (in which case, clearly no failure of basis) or it didn’t and it was a
gamble on the price the property sold for (in which case, I don’t get my stake back when I bet on red and it comes up black).
Matthew
Matthew Hoyle
Barrister
One Essex Court
This message is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you have received it in error please delete this email and immediately inform the sender.
Regulated by the Bar Standards Board.
From: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 4:11:09 PM
To: obligations <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: ODG: The Laws of Restitution
Dear Colleagues:
Congratulations go out to ODGer Robert Stevens on the publication of his newest book with OUP:
The Laws of Restitution (2023): https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-laws-of-restitution-9780192885029?q=robert%20stevens&lang=en&cc=gb#
A 30% discount is available by using the instructions on the attached order form.
If anyone has any comments, small or large, Rob would be grateful to have them at
robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk (“Except for pointing out typos. Please wait for six months before telling me of them,” he says.)
From the description:
In The Laws of Restitution, Robert Stevens shows that there is no unified law of restitution or unjust enrichment. Instead, there are seven or eight different kinds of private law claim,
depending on how you count them, which have nothing important in common one with another that have been grouped together by commentators. Few of these claims have anything to do with enrichment, and what is restituted differs between them. Like all private
law claims, those gathered here concern (in)justice between individuals, but they have no further unity. Many of them are not based upon an agreement or a wrong, but that negative feature has no utility. "Restitution" or "unjust enrichment' should cease to
be discussed as unified areas of law.
With close attention to caselaw and legislation, the work identifies and describes the various reasons for "restitution" that any properly constructed system of private law ought to recognise. It explains how the law of restitution relates to, and is bound
up with, contract, torts, equity, and property law.
A query; Would accepting any of Professor’s Stevens insights change the result, or reasons offered, in
Barton v Morris [2023] UKSC 3?
Happy Reading,
Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
|
|
|
|
|
You're receiving this message because you're a member of the obligations group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part
in this conversation, reply all to this message. |
|
|
|
View group files | Leave group | Learn
more about Microsoft 365 Groups |
|
|
This e-mail originates from outside One Essex Court. Please exercise caution
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not
the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security,
compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.