Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution (2006) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English unjust enrichment law and restitution. Content [ edit ]
Goff and Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment (formerly Goff and Jones on the Law of Restitution, usually simply abbreviated to Goff & Jones) is the leading authoritative English law textbook on restitution and unjust enrichment. First written by Robert Goff and Gareth Jones, it is presently in its tenth edition.
Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. United States , 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a defendant wishing to appeal an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case must file a notice of appeal from that order.
Disgorgement is the act of giving up something on demand or by legal compulsion, for example giving up profits that were obtained illegally. [1]In United States regulatory law, disgorgement is often a civil remedy imposed by some regulatory agencies to seize illegally obtained profits.
The law responds to each of them by imposing an obligation to pay compensatory damages. Restitution for wrongs is the subject which deals with the issue of when exactly the law also responds by imposing an obligation to make restitution. Example. In Attorney General v Blake, [25] an English court found itself faced with the following claim. The ...
The English law of Restitution is the law of gain-based recovery. [1] Its precise scope and underlying principles remain a matter of significant academic and judicial controversy. [ 2 ] Broadly speaking, the law of restitution concerns actions in which one person claims an entitlement in respect of a gain acquired by another, rather than ...
It is subject to several qualifications. In such cases, the claimant may still be entitled to restitution. Examples include: Where, properly construed, the benefit received by the defendant did not form part of the bargained-for counter-performance; Where the claimant has only received an "incidental" benefit; [41]
Pavey & Mathews would have received less restitution only if Mrs Paul had withdrawn her promise before the work had begun, but the builders had gone ahead anyway. Also, the quantum meruit (the amount rewarded) could be no higher than the objective market rate for the work, even if Mrs Paul’s promise was for a higher price.