Of course it's just a tree.  What does it look like ?
RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives
  
 
 

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

 
<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>
Sender:
Andrew Dickinson
Date:
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:32:54
Re:
"at the expense of"

 

My initial reaction is that the payment/ liability to the sub-contractors ought not to matter.

In the example, the relevant "transfer or resources" is the performance by the sub-contractor on behalf of the main contractor. As far as the landowner is concerned, he has requested performance, at least in the first instance, not from the sub-contractor but from the main contractor. As far as the main contractor is concerned, performance by the sub-contractor has resulted in a reduction in his assets/ resources in that he no longer has any right of action against the sub-contractor to compel performance nor, perhaps, any right to allocate resources elsewhere. Whether he is now liable to pay the sub-contractor is neither here nor there. As far as the sub-contractor is concerned, his performance was requested by the main contractor and has discharged an obligation under his contract with the main contractor.

In view of the above, the landowner's enrichment, it is submitted, should be regarded as having been "at the expense of" the main contractor. Whether it should also be regarded as having been at the expense of the sub-contractor is, in my opinion, open to doubt. I am not convinced that the sub-contractor could maintain a restitutionary claim against the landowner in the event, for example, of the main contractor becoming insolvent (The Trident Beauty; Brennan -v- Brighton BC and Henderson -v- Merrett would all seem to be relevant in this regard).

Any views

 

Andrew

*********************************************
The information in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This information may be subject to legal professional or other privilege or may otherwise be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. It must not be disclosed to any person without our authority. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it.


<== Previous message       Back to index       Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "


     
Webspace provided by UCC   »
»
»
»
»
For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.
only search restitution site

 
 Contact the webmaster !