-- >From drfilios@hellasnet.gr Mon May 01 13:18:14 2000 Received: from mail.hellasnet.gr ([212.54.192.3]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12mF9S-0006wc-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 1 May 2000 13:18:14 +0100 Received: from filios (ppp46-V90-voula.athe.hellasnet.gr [212.54.194.174]) by mail.hellasnet.gr (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA10062 for ; Mon, 1 May 2000 14:17:14 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <009d01bfb367$1987d940$aec236d4@filios> From: "Drfilios" To: Subject: English translation of the Greek civil code Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 15:16:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009A_01BFB380.3CAB2C60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01BFB380.3CAB2C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New book for all the anglophone lawyers being interested in the = compared law, in particular in the Hellenic civil law. GREEK CIVIL CODE, Translation by Constantin TALIADOROS, Edited by = Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, 2000.=20 You can find this book to the following address: = http://www.ant-sakkoulas.gr=20 Dr. Christian P. FILIOS (Ph.D.) =20 ------=_NextPart_000_009A_01BFB380.3CAB2C60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    = New book for=20 all the anglophone lawyers being = interested=20 in the compared law, in particular in the Hellenic civil=20 law.
 
    GREEK CIVIL CODE, Translation by Constantin = TALIADOROS,=20 Edited by Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, 2000.=20
 
    = You can find=20 this book to the following address: http://www.ant-sakkoulas.gr=20
 
Dr. Christian P. = FILIOS=20 (Ph.D.)
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_009A_01BFB380.3CAB2C60-- >From drfilios@hellasnet.gr Mon May 08 12:39:05 2000 Received: from mail.hellasnet.gr ([212.54.192.3]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12olsO-0003hI-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 8 May 2000 12:39:05 +0100 Received: from filios (ppp36-V90-voula.athe.hellasnet.gr [212.54.194.164]) by mail.hellasnet.gr (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA15205 for ; Mon, 8 May 2000 13:38:01 +0200 (GMT) Message-ID: <007e01bfb8e1$c8dde180$f8c236d4@filios> From: "Drfilios" To: Subject: French translation of the Greek civil code Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 14:36:47 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0079_01BFB8FA.D6B23040" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0079_01BFB8FA.D6B23040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New book for all the anglophone lawyers being interested in the = comparative studies, in particular in the Hellenic civil law (French = version of the Hellenic civil code). GREEK CIVIL CODE, French Translation by the =ABHellenic Institute of = International and Foreign Law=BB, 3 ed., Edited by Ant. N. Sakkoulas = Publishers, 2000 (price approx. $31US).=20 You can find this book to the following address: = http://www.ant-sakkoulas.gr=20 Dr. Christian P. FILIOS (Ph.D.) ------=_NextPart_000_0079_01BFB8FA.D6B23040 Content-Type: text/html; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    = New book for=20 all the anglophone lawyers being = interested=20 in the comparative studies, in particular in the Hellenic civil law = (French=20 version of the Hellenic civil code).
 
    GREEK CIVIL CODE, French Translation by = the=20 =ABHellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law=BB, 3 ed., Edited = by Ant. N.=20 Sakkoulas Publishers, 2000 (price approx. $31US).=20
 
    = You can find=20 this book to the following address: http://www.ant-sakkoulas.gr=20
 
Dr. Christian P. = FILIOS=20 (Ph.D.)
 
------=_NextPart_000_0079_01BFB8FA.D6B23040-- >From joshua.getzler@law.oxford.ac.uk Mon May 08 17:19:51 2000 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.33] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12oqG6-0004XI-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 8 May 2000 17:19:50 +0100 Received: from heraldgate1.oucs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.49] helo=frontend1.herald.ox.ac.uk ident=exim) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12oqG4-00001k-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 08 May 2000 17:19:48 +0100 Received: from fellow10.sthughs.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.228.70] helo=law.ox.ac.uk) by frontend1.herald.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.02 #1) id 12oqG6-0007xz-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Mon, 8 May 2000 17:19:50 +0100 Message-ID: <3916E917.D642949E@law.ox.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 17:19:36 +0100 From: Dr Joshua Getzler Reply-To: joshua.getzler@law.oxford.ac.uk Organization: Faculty of Law and St Hugh's College, University of Oxford X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en-gb] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en-GB,en,en-* MIME-Version: 1.0 To: restitution discussion group Subject: equity in the Federal Court of Australia Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some interesting equity, trust and tracing cases have come from the Federal Court of Australia: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings PL (1999) 169 ALR 324; [1999] FCA 2 per French J - definition of unconscionable conduct in contract formation for purposes of defining extent of Commonwealth legislative competence. Morlea Professional Services PL v Richard Walter PL in liq (1999) 169 ALR 419; [1999] FCA 1820 per Hill, Sackville and Finn JJ - constructive trusts against third party intermeddlers and standing of beneficiaries to sue for breach of trust by third parties. Cachia v Westpac Financial Services (2000) 170 ALR 651; [2000] FCA 161 per Hely J - fraud on powers; difference between unit trusts and company shares. >From james.edelman@magdalen.oxford.ac.uk Wed May 10 23:34:32 2000 Received: from oxmail2.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12pf3o-0004PN-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 10 May 2000 23:34:32 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12pf3o-0000Ip-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 10 May 2000 23:34:32 +0100 Received: from jamie.magd.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.184.108]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12pf3o-0003oh-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Wed, 10 May 2000 23:34:32 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01bfbad0$17cf78e0$6cb801a3@magd.ox.ac.uk> Reply-To: "James Edelman" From: "James Edelman" To: References: Subject: RDG: Money Had and Received and Constructive Trusts Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:35:49 +0100 Organization: Magdalen College, Oxford MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Trustor AB v Smallbone & ors - Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - Sir Richard Scott V-C, Buxton LJ, Gage J - 09.05.00. Headnote on NewLaw Online. After acquiring control of a Swedish holding company, defendants LM and LS transferred £61.6m the company's money to a London bank account controlled by them. Amongst the myriad of payments and claims to contribution one payment by LS, in breach of duty to the company, was to a company, Introcom, controlled by LS. Introcom then paid some of this money onto LS. It appears from the headnote that Introcom was liable only for the remaining money as money had and received but was liable to account "as a constructive trustee" for all the money initially received. LS appears to have been held liable for all the money received "as a constructive trustee". >From lionel.smith@st-hughs.oxford.ac.uk Thu May 11 21:24:30 2000 Received: from oxmail2.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.1] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12pzVW-0005no-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:30 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12pzVW-0002iw-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:30 +0100 Received: from max41.public.ox.ac.uk ([192.76.27.41]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12pzVV-0008M9-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:29 +0100 Subject: Date: Thu, 11 May 00 21:28:48 +0100 x-sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Lionel Smith To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: approved: kempsonhouse From: "James Edelman" Subject: RDG: Money Had and Received and Constructive Trusts Trustor AB v Smallbone & ors - Court of Appeal (Civil Division) - Sir Richard Scott V-C, Buxton LJ, Gage J - 09.05.00. Headnote on NewLaw = Online. After acquiring control of a Swedish holding company, defendants LM = and LS transferred =A361.6m the company's money to a London bank account = controlled by them. Amongst the myriad of payments and claims to contribution = one payment by LS, in breach of duty to the company, was to a company, = Introcom, controlled by LS. Introcom then paid some of this money onto LS. It appears from the headnote that Introcom was liable only for the = remaining money as money had and received but was liable to account "as a = constructive trustee" for all the money initially received. LS appears to have = been held liable for all the money received "as a constructive trustee". >From lionel.smith@st-hughs.oxford.ac.uk Thu May 11 21:24:45 2000 Received: from oxmail4.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.33] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12pzVl-0005oU-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:45 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12pzVl-0002MM-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:45 +0100 Received: from max41.public.ox.ac.uk ([192.76.27.41]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12pzVf-0008M9-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 11 May 2000 21:24:39 +0100 Subject: Dimond v Lovell Date: Thu, 11 May 00 21:28:58 +0100 x-sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Lionel Smith To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Today the HL gave judgment in Dimond v Lovell, available at The plaintiff's car was damaged by the defendant's negligence. The = plaintiff hired a replacement car under an agreement ("accident = hire") by which she did not have to pay but rather the hire company = would recover the contract price from the defendant, by suing in the = plaintiff's name. It was held that the agreement between plaintiff = and hire company was unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act = 1974. In those circumstances, the plaintiff (ie the hire company = suing in the plaintiff's name) was said not to be unjustly enriched: "The real difficulty, as it seems to me, is that to treat Mrs. Dimond = as having been unjustly enriched would be inconsistent with the = purpose of section 61(1). Parliament intended that if a consumer = credit agreement was improperly executed, then subject to the = enforcement powers of the court, the debtor should not have to pay. = This meant that Parliament contemplated that he might be enriched and = I do not see how it is open to the court to say that this consequence = is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: compare = Orakpo v. Manson Investments Ltd. [1978] A.C. 95." The Hunt v. Severs principle (which allows a plaintiff to recover = damages measured by the value of care gratuitously provided by eg a = family member, to be held on trust for that other) could not apply = here: "The House treated the two cases mentioned by Lord Reid in Parry v. = Cleaver [1970] A.C.1, 14 ("the fruits of insurance which the = plaintiff himself has provided" and "the fruits of the benevolence of = third parties") as "apparent exceptions to the rule against double = recovery" founded on the special considerations of policy which Lord = Reid had explained: see Lord Bridge of Harwich, at p. 358. The House = declined to create another exception for the case in which, as in = Donnelly v. Joyce [1974] Q.B. 454, the plaintiff claims compensation = for the reasonable cost of necessary services which have in fact been = provided voluntarily by a third party. It decided that in such a case = damages cannot be recovered for the plaintiff's own benefit. He can = sue only if he claims as trustee for the person who provided the = services: see p. 363. This case is of course far away from the gratuitous provision of = services (usually by a relative) which was considered suitable for = recovery as trustee in Hunt v. Severs [1994] 2 A.C. 350. If Mrs. = Dimond is allowed to sue Mr. Lovell as trustee for 1st Automotive, = the effect will be to confer legal rights upon 1st Automotive by = virtue of an agreement which the Act of 1974 has declared to be = unenforceable. This would be contrary to the intention of the Act. = The only way, therefore, in which Mrs. Dimond could recover damages = for the notional cost of hiring a car which she has actually had for = free is if your Lordships were willing to create another exception to = the rule against double recovery. I can see no basis for doing so. = The policy of the Act of 1974 is to penalise 1st Automotive for not = entering into a properly executed agreement. A consequence is often = to confer a benefit upon the debtor, but that is a consequence rather = than the primary purpose. There is no reason of policy why the law = should insist that Mrs. Dimond should be able to retain that benefit = and make a double recovery rather than that it should reduce the = liability of Mr. Lovell's insurers." Obiter, but (as I count the heads) by a majority, it was said that = even if the agreement had been enforceable, the plaintiff could have = recovered only what a "normal" hirer would have charged, not the = contractual rate set out in her agreement with the hire company = (which is higher than normal because of the commercial risks = involved). This point was of great importance to the accident hire = trade because it would arise had the agreement been better drafted, = and is the reason why there was an appeal to the HL over a sum of = =A3346. In other words, this particular trade would now appear to be = defunct. L >From gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk Fri May 12 14:36:26 2000 Received: from dire.bris.ac.uk ([137.222.10.60]) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12qFcA-0001mS-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:36:26 +0100 Received: from sis.bris.ac.uk by dire.bris.ac.uk with SMTP-PRIV with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:36:21 +0100 Received: from law-brno.law.bris.ac.uk (brno.law.bris.ac.uk [137.222.84.104]) by sis.bris.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA01843; Fri, 12 May 2000 14:36:01 +0100 (BST) From: Gerard McMeel Sender: Gerard.McMeel@bristol.ac.uk Reply-To: gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk To: Lionel Smith Cc: restitution Subject: RDG: new publications In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 14:54:09 +0100 (British Summer Time) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Two new publications: First, "Lessons from the Swaps Litigation" edited by Peter Birks and Francis Rose, published by LLP. Secondly, my own contribution: Gerard McMeel, "The Modern Law of Restituion", published by Blackstone Press (who will be characteristically generous with Inspection Copies for Lecturers). See www.blackstonepress.com Briefly on the practical implications of Dimond v Lovell, my understanding is that the UK Director General of Fair Trading is quite favourable towards the help hire industry (as indeed was the House of Lords in the 1994 case of Giles v Thompson). Therefore many of them are now licensed to carry on this kind of business. The problems arise out of an earlier batch of cases where nobody had thought them to be consumer credit agreements, before our car insurers started taking the point. Dimond may adversely affect earlier cases, but these are teething troubles, rather than the end of industry. I could personally never see how restituion could be relevant to these cases. ---------------------- Gerard McMeel Faculty of Law University of Bristol, UK gerard.mcmeel@bristol.ac.uk >From swh10@cus.cam.ac.uk Thu May 18 15:05:20 2000 Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.6] ident=cusexim) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12sQvQ-0006xh-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 18 May 2000 15:05:20 +0100 Received: from swh10.christs.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.219.51] helo=swh10) by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.14 #4) id 12sQvN-00002D-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 18 May 2000 15:05:17 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20000518150633.0163be40@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> X-Sender: swh10@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:06:33 +0100 To: restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk From: Steve Hedley Subject: Foskett ... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Foskett v McKeown now available on the House of Lords server. Not to mention various other long-awaited cases, such as Three Rivers and Jolley v Sutton. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldjudgmt/ldjud gmt.htm Steve Hedley =================================================== FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931 e-mail : steve.hedley@law.cam.ac.uk messages : (01223) 334900 fax : (01223) 334967 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU =================================================== >From lionel.smith@st-hughs.oxford.ac.uk Thu May 25 21:40:55 2000 Received: from oxmail3.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.180] helo=oxmail.ox.ac.uk) by bagpuss.oucs.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 12v4R5-0004yr-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 25 May 2000 21:40:55 +0100 Received: from sable.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.4]) by oxmail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1) id 12v4R5-0006wQ-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 25 May 2000 21:40:55 +0100 Received: from max67.public.ox.ac.uk ([192.76.27.67]) by sable.ox.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 12v4R4-00034y-00 for restitution@maillist.ox.ac.uk; Thu, 25 May 2000 21:40:55 +0100 Subject: Knowing Receipt Date: Thu, 25 May 00 21:40:38 +0100 x-sender: lawf0014@sable.ox.ac.uk x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Lionel Smith To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-Id: In February Paul Matthews mentioned the Court of Appeal's decision in Houghton v. Fayers, in which it was held that for a defendant to be liable in knowing receipt, it is enough to establish that he knew or ought to have known of the breach of trust or fiduciary duty. This would put English law into the same position as Canadian law (Citadel General Assurance v. Lloyds Bank Canada [1997] 3 SCR 805, 152 DLR (4th) 385). Houghton v. Fayers is now reported at [2000] 1 BCLC 571. Lionel