![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
Atlantic
Shipping v Finagrain, Toulson J, 15/1/99 (not reported in WLR, unless
I missed it) may be of interest, in that it effectively rubbishes Phillips
v Homfray and confines it to leases of land.
A stored F's grain. The contract provided for various
rates of payment up to 60 days, but (it was held) said nothing about what
happened after 60 days. Surprise, surprise, F allowed their grain to overstay
its welcome beyond the 60 day period. A sued for restitution, but (remarkably)
failed to plead a cause of action for restitutionary damages in tort,
which would have been unanswerable. F argued, pettifoggingly, that this
meant A had to lose: their cause of action was in tort or not at all,
because of Phillips. Toulson treated this plea with the contempt it deserved,
holding that A had an independent restitutionary claim.
AMT
Andrew Tettenborn Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international) Snailmail: <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |