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 ]
conversion, unjust enrichment, restitution, the right to an accounting, human rights violations and violations of international law: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation: violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Pavey & Mathews would have received less restitution only if Mrs Paul had withdrawn her promise before the work had begun, but the builders had gone ahead anyway.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 ...
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission , 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to seek monetary relief for restitution or disgorgement from those that it found in violation of trade practices.
The following is an excerpt about the change of position defence at work. The Change Of Position Issue. 76 As Mr Howe correctly observed in the course of argument, “change of position” is what this case is really all about. 77 In Lipkin Gorman (above) the House of Lords recognised change of position as a defence to restitutionary claims. In ...
One study authored by research psychiatrist Dr. Mindy Thompson Fullilove and published by the nonprofit Institute for Justice looked at cases involving the Federal Housing Act between 1949 and 1973.
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]