This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL 2023 Notes

Resti Consolidated Notes Final Notes

Updated Resti Consolidated Notes Final Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL 2023 Notes

Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL 2023

Approximately 253 pages

Thorough and meticulously curated Restitution of Unjust Enrichment study guide, crafted from the 2022-23 syllabus. This comprehensive resource encompasses detailed bullet-point summaries across all subject areas, presented in an accessible, well-organized format with color-coded sections for ease of navigation. It also includes concise summaries of nearly all cases and relevant articles from the reading list, seamlessly integrated within the notes. This guide serves as the ultimate tool for ef...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL 2023 Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

1 Introduction 5

1.1 Stevens’ criticisms 5

2 Enrichment 6

2.1 Two approaches in Benedetti v Sawiris 6

2.1.1 Common starting point: objective value 6

2.1.2 Divergent approaches: Lord Clarke v Lord Reed 7

2.1.3 Which should be preferred? 8

2.1.4 Quantifying objective value 9

2.1.5 Subjective revaluation? 10

2.2 Manifested choice of benefit 11

2.2.1 Incontrovertible (or presumed) benefit 11

2.2.1.1 Money 12

2.2.1.2 Saving of a factually or legally inevitable expense 12

2.2.1.3 Realised (or realisable) benefits 13

2.2.1.4 Retention of readily returnable benefits 15

2.2.2 Requests 15

2.2.3 Free acceptance? 16

2.3 Types of enrichment (summary) 17

2.4 Flaws with ‘enrichment’ theory 20

2.4.1 Counterfactual betterment? 20

2.4.2 Cases involving no discernible factual enrichment (enrichment; no benefit) 21

3 At the expense of 24

3.1 Direct transfers of value 26

3.2 Loss 31

3.2.1 Incidental or collateral benefits 31

3.2.2 No requirement of correspondence between loss and gain 33

3.2.2.1 D’s gain is less than C’s loss 33

3.2.2.2 D’s gain exceeds C’s loss 33

3.2.2.3 C suffers no loss 34

3.3 Insufficiency of ‘but for’ causation 34

3.4 Three-party cases 35

3.4.1 Procuring the provision of benefits to another 35

3.4.2 ‘Leapfrogging’ out of an initially valid contract 37

3.4.3 Interceptive subtractions 38

3.5 Competing views 39

3.5.1 Burrows (2017): ‘conferral or taking’ 39

3.5.2 Stevens 39

3.5.3 Smith 40

4 Mistake 42

4.1 What counts as a ‘mistake’? 43

4.1.1 Mispredictions 43

4.1.2 Doubts and suspicions 45

4.1.2.1 Has C responded unreasonably to doubts? 46

4.1.3 Assumptions and ignorance 47

4.1.4 Whose mistake? 48

4.2 Mistakes of law 49

4.2.1 Overruling an earlier judicial decision 50

4.2.2 Judicial decision contrary to settled understanding 50

4.2.3 Judicial decision resolving state of uncertainty 50

4.2.4 Legislative changes 51

4.2.5 Mistake as to entitlement to restitution: a ‘paradox’? 53

4.3 Causation 54

4.4 Relevance of C’s fault? 55

5 Obligation rule 56

5.1 Rescission of contract 59

5.2 Equitable rescission of deed of gift (or trust) 59

5.3 Relationship between unjust enrichment and contract 62

6 Absence of basis? 64

6.1 Birks’ new scheme 64

6.2 Have English courts moved to an ‘absence of basis’ approach? 64

6.2.1 Birks’ view 64

6.2.2 Burrows’ response 65

6.3 Should the law move to an ‘absence of basis’ approach? 68

6.3.1 Burrows’ view 69

6.4 Canadian approach – absence of juristic reason 69

7 Failure of basis 70

7.1 What is failure of basis? 70

7.1.1 Objective basis for transfer 70

7.1.2 ‘Total’ failure 71

7.1.3 Should partial failure be sufficient? 74

7.1.3.1 Cases taking an artificial view of ‘total’ failure 74

7.1.4 Thomas v Brown requirement 75

7.2 Failure of basis (invalid agreements) 75

7.2.1 Void contracts (lack of capacity; want of form) 75

7.2.1.1 Failure of wholly executed contract 77

7.2.2 Anticipated contracts which do not materialise 80

7.3 Failure of basis (breach of contract) 82

7.3.1 Claims brought by innocent party 84

7.3.1.1 Innocent party seeking restitution of money 84

7.3.1.2 Innocent party seeking restitution of value of goods or services 88

7.3.2 Claim brought by party in breach 92

7.3.2.1 Party in breach seeking restitution of money 92

7.3.2.2 Party in breach seeking restitution of value of goods or services 95

7.4 Failure of basis (frustration) 96

7.4.1 Money (s 1(2)) 98

7.4.2 Non-money benefits (s 1(3)) 99

7.5 Subsisting contract 101

8 Duress and undue influence 105

8.1 Duress 105

8.1.1 Nature of duress 105

8.1.2 Actual or threatened harm to person 106

8.1.3 Duress of goods 107

8.1.4 Demands colore officii 108

8.1.5 Improper use of legal process 109

8.1.6 Illegitimate threat to publish information 110

8.1.7 Economic duress 110

8.1.8 Lawful act duress? 113

8.1.9 Bars to setting aside contract 116

8.2 Undue influence 117

8.2.1 Rationale underlying undue influence 117

8.2.1.1 Fault not required 119

8.2.1.2 Notice / bank protocol 119

8.2.2 ‘Actual’ (directly proven) undue influence 120

8.2.3 ‘Presumed’ (indirectly proven) undue influence 120

8.2.3.1 Stage 1(a): Relationships of influence (presumed) 121

8.2.3.2 Stage 1(b): Relationships of influence (ad hoc) 121

8.2.3.3 Stage 2: Transaction calling for explanation 122

8.2.3.4 Rebuttal of presumption by D 123

9 Ultra vires exaction (Woolwich principle) 125

9.1 Counterfactual analysis? 129

9.2 s 33 Taxes Management Act 1970 132

10 Ultra vires payment (Auckland Harbour principle) 133

10.1 s 71 Social Security Administration Act 1992 133

11 Necessity 135

11.1 Positive law: sui generis categories 135

11.1.1 Salvage 135

11.1.2 Burial 136

11.1.3 Necessaries supplied to a person lacking mental capacity 136

11.1.4 Agency of necessity / bailment 136

11.2 Rationalisation 137

12 Discharge of another’s obligation 140

12.1 Conventional (non-UE) analysis 140

12.1.1 Has C in fact discharged D’s obligation to X? 140

12.1.1.1 Voluntarily assumed obligations? 144

12.1.2 Has the correct party ultimately borne the burden? 145

12.1.2.1 C’s discharge of D’s obligation to X to recover C’s goods 147

12.1.2.2 C’s discharge of common liability to X where C’s liability secondary 147

12.2 Distortions in applying Birksian scheme to ‘discharge’ cases 149

12.2.1 Sui generis 154

12.3 Subrogation 155

13 Property (ignorance, tracing, BFP) 159

13.1 Common law: receipt of cash or property to which C has better title 159

13.1.1 Alternative unjust enrichment analysis: ‘ignorance’ or ‘powerlessness’? 160

13.1.1.1 Swadling’s objections 160

13.1.1.2 Burrows’ response 160

13.1.2 Summary of Birksian analysis 161

13.2 Contract and conveyance 162

14 Tracing 163

14.1 Tracing at common law 163

14.1.1 Identification 167

14.2 Tracing in equity 167

14.2.1 Backwards tracing? 170

14.3 Is tracing explicable in terms of UE? 171

15 Equity 173

15.1 Knowing receipt 173

15.1.1 Proprietary claim 173

15.1.2 Personal claim (liability to account as a constructive trustee) 174

15.1.3 Personal claim in unjust enrichment? 177

15.2 Receipt from a deceased’s estate distributed by mistake...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL 2023 Notes.