Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Rupert Shiers |
| Date: |
Wed, 21 Mar 2001 09:52:08 |
| Re: |
Answers on a postcard |
Though
your first paragraph sounds right, surely the prize draw example is a different
case - you've acquired (1) the right to enter the draw and (2) the car,
but only sold on (2)? Whereas in the comedian situation, it's impossible
on almost any realistic view - I think - to resolve what the original purchaser
acquired into two elements.
-----Original Message----- At 14:42 20/03/01 -0500, Lionel wrote:
Here is a question which is based on a real case.
It did not go to court but to a form of arbitration. I will provide
details later... North American members may be familiar. A comedian gives a live performance. The comedian
is unutterably wealthy and well able to afford spontaneous acts of
generosity. Near the end of the show he announces that he has not
been very funny and he is going to refund the price of tickets. The
modality of refund is, for the vast majority who paid for their tickets
by credit card, a refund on the credit card account. The plaintiff
bought his ticket at face value from the defendant, who bought it
by credit card. The refund goes to the defendant. Can the plaintiff
recover from the defendant? Lionel Assuming the comedian isn't actually
in breach of contract by being unfunny, and that this is a case of pure
gift, surely the answer must be No. The reason, I suggest, is that contract
(in this case the contract between the original purchaser and the spectator)
ousts restitution. The spectator has bought a thing of value (the right
to watch the performance), which he was prepared to pay face value for.
The contract remains on foot and binding. I can't see any court implying
a term in it that any refunds are to be passed on.
To take the case out of this rather fantastic
scenario, take a slightly more orthodox possibility. I buy a new car,
at the same time entering a prize draw with the garage in which the first
prize is a full refund of the price of a car bought within a given period.
I sell the car on. Then I win the prize. No court in the kingdom would
say that I had to account for the prize to the purchaser. He got what
he paid for: there's no reason to give him any more.
Andrew
__________________________________________________________ The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary
user of the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be privileged.
If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not copy, forward,
disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any form whatsoever.
If you have received this e-mail in error please e-mail the sender by
replying to this message.
A list of the partners of Norton Rose, Solicitors, can
be inspected at
From: Andrew Tettenborn
Sent: 21 March 2001 09:37
Subject: Re: [RDG:] Answers on a postcard
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
www.nortonrose.com
__________________________________________________________
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
