Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Steve wrote:

"Traditionally, the English courts have drawn no distinction between contract and quasi-contract here; quasi-contractual action is caught by the 6-year bar on 'actions in simple contract'.

The distinction between contract and quasi-contract, while of course it can be drawn, is therefore not obviously useful to a plaintiff in this context.

Theorists of a certain stamp have waxed indignant at this, but having asserted that contract *should* be different period from quasi-contract, they can then think of no more appropriate period than the contractual one."

It is true that some claims based upon unjustified enrichment (if we accept the existence of such a category) are classified as actions "founded on a simple contract" for the purposes of s5 of the Limitation Act. This is surely unsurprising. If they were not so classified the courts would have been forced to conclude that no time limit applied to such claims as there is no specific provision within the Act dealing with them. It is also true that the time period applicable is generally the same: 6 years. It is not true, however, that time starts to run from the same point. Time for claims based upon a breach of contract will generally start from breach. Time for claims based upon unjustified enrichment will generally, but not always, run from the time of enrichment. Claims based upon the commission of a tort also generally carry a time limit of six years. Where a claim for breach of contract and the commission of a tort exist concurrently the different points at which time may begin to run can provide an incentive for the pleading of the claim in tort rather than in contract (Henderson v Merrett). The same may be true where a claim based upon unjustified enrichment exists concurrently with a claim for breach of contract.

Robert Stevens