![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
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
********************************************* <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |