Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Lionel Smith |
| Date: |
Mon, 8 Dec 1997 11:56:11 |
| Re: |
Taylor v. Dickens |
Eoin O'Dell wrote,
Reluctant as I am to utter (once again
!) the immortal words "There is an Irish case ...", nonetheless, I want
to mention not one, but three, in the context of Taylor v. Dickens.
Of course there are also Canadian cases. We should remember
that what may be the first Commonwealth case to recognize a claim in unjust
enrichment was Deglman
[1954] 3 DLR 785 (SCC), which was a quantum meruit claim against an estate
for services rendered. More recently Single v. Macharski Estate
[1996] 3 WWR 23, [1997] RLR 61 (Man CA). It may well be that these cases
are good examples of the new model free acceptance, ie secret acceptance,
but then again the unconscionability may be supervening rather than initial.
(What?)
Lionel
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
