Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I guess the trouble that I have is that I fail to see how it can be an UE when there is a "juristic reason" justifying the retention of the value, in most cases of UI a gift or contract. In order to show that the enrichment is unjust, one must then attack the underlying contract or gift which requires some sort of fault (duress, breach of fiduciary duty, etc.) or the implicit objective agreement of the parties that it is not to bind in certain circumstances (conditional gift, fundamental mistake in assumptions, etc.). If UI is not about fault then how does it upset the underlying contract or gift so that UE can operate?

As an aside, the other problem that I have with the doctrine is that the presumptions of UI are seemingly applied counter intuitively -- i.e. in the very type of relationship where one would be most likely to subvert their desire for gain or equivalent exchange, such as family relationships, the law presumes some sort of quasi-fault rather than the fulfilment of natural obligation.

Cheers,

William Swadling wrote:

If I pay you £100 by mistake, you commit no wrong in your receipt. Yet a court will intervene and order you to repay me that amount. The point which Mummery LJ is making, and quite rightly so, is that the repayment of money paid through undue influence can be explained as a species of unjust enrichment, without any need to rely on wrongdoing.