Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Duncan Sheehan |
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Apr 2004 12:04:44 +0100 |
| Re: |
Undue Influence & Natural Obligations |
That's fair, I think, but I'm not sure it makes a vast
amount of difference. My 'justification' removes their 'explanation'.
Duncan
Dr Duncan Sheehan -----Original Message----- The issue, surely, is not about an
'explanation' at all. The transfer in Allcard v Skinner, for
example, can be 'explained' as one where the novice was acting under
the influence of the Mother Superior. Similarly, the 'explanation' of
Chase Manhattan is that the second transfer was made by mistake.
Indeed, if these 'explanations' were removed, the ground of claim would
simply disappear. What Duncan seems to be looking for is a justification
for the transfers, not an explanation.
Postgraduate Admissions Officer
Norwich Law School
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
From: Enrichment - Restitution & Unjust Enrichment Legal Issues
On Behalf Of William Swadling
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [RDG:] Undue Influence & Natural Obligations
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
