Dear colleagues:

Some of you might be interested in these recent publications:

Hon Justice W M C Gummow, MOSES V MACFERLAN: 250 YEARS ON   84 (2010) Australian Law Journal   756  

    The continued influence of this case upon the scope of the action for money had and received is apparent in the Restatement of the Law Third, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, which was adopted by the American Law Institute earlier this year. The basic proposition that the action lies where the money was received in such circumstances that retention would offend equity and good conscience informs the Restatement and in Australia is reflected in a long line of High Court authority. In particular, over definition and dissection of the defence of “change of position” by reference to “good faith” of the recipient diverts attention from the question whether it would be inequitable for the claimant to require repayment. “Good faith” may require the exercise of caution and diligence by the recipient and, for example, may be lacking, even without dishonesty, if a financial institution fails to act in a commercially acceptable way.

 

Chris D.L. Hunt,  “The Decline of Juristic Reasons? Unjust Enrichment and the Supreme Court of Canada”  43 (2010) University of British Columbia Law Review  173.

Cheers,

-- 
Jason Neyers
Associate Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435 

====

This message was delivered through the Restitution Discussion Group, an international internet LISTSERV devoted to all aspects of the law of unjust enrichment. To subscribe, send "subscribe enrichment" in the body of a message to <listserv@lists.mcgill.ca>. To unsubscribe, send "signoff enrichment" to the same address. To make a posting to all group members, send to <enrichment@lists.mcgill.ca>. The list is run by Lionel Smith of McGill University, <lionel.smith@mcgill.ca>.