Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pavey & Mathews would have received less restitution only if Mrs Paul had withdrawn her promise before the work had begun, but the builders had gone ahead anyway.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.
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 ...
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 ]
The concepts of restitution and compensation are not the same though they will on occasions fulfil the same need. Restitution is analogous to property: it concerns wealth or advantage which ought to be returned or transferred by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is a form of specific implement.
The lead prosecutor in the felony criminal case against former Columbus Zoo and Aquarium CEO Tom Stalf says the former executive's current employer, a major zoo sponsor and donor, has paid the ...
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the government or the victim must establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages.
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.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9–0 decision, recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace. [1] [2]