Dear all,

Some of you may be interested in the below, with apologies if it has
already been posted:

Susan Kiefel, Lessons from a 'Conversation' About Restitution

Abstract:
In Australia, the law of restitution adheres to the approach
exemplified by Lord Mansfield in Moses v Macferlan. It does not
recognise 'unjust enrichment'
as a definitive principle. In the late 20th century, the English
courts recognised the principle and, shortly after, the defence of
change of position.
These developments may owe much to a 'conversation' between English
and German legal scholars. The German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch [Civil
Code] ('BGB')
has long recognised the defence, as a counterpoint to its broad
'absence of basis' ground for liability. Notably, however, English law
has not (yet) embraced
such a broad ground for liability, and still requires a vitiating
factor, such as mistake, to found a restitutionary claim. This article
considers what
implications the adherence to the considerations in Moses v Macferlan
may have for the acceptance in Australia of the change of position
defence as it
is known to English and German law.

https://lr.law.qut.edu.au/article/view/576

====

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>.