Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I suppose it is one of the advantages of legal debate (or perhaps one of the weaknesses of internet discussion groups), that seemingly simple questions can give rise to ever more fundamental issues. The reason I asked the original question (it seems a long time ago) was not because I was unsure as to whether the money could be recovered should the judgment be set aside. I was unsure about the practical consequence of categorising this as being part of the law of unjust enrichment (most notably re change of position). I'm still none the wiser.

It seems a bit of a shame to spill lakes of virtual ink in asking whether this claim is one of unjust enrichment or not without knowing the consequences of deciding either way. I am aware that any debate about whether something is an example of unjust enrichment is valuable in the sense of clarifying and testing our notions of what unjust enrichment is. But what would either the Daily Star or Archer have to gain as a result of categorising this claim as grounded on unjust enrichment ?

I thought Archer might claim it to use cofposition. Jonathon Moore pointed out that calling a claim one in unjust enrichment did not mean cofp would necessarily apply. Is it the case then that the question of whether Archer can defend a claim by saying "But I spent the money in good faith on things other than those I would otherwise have bought" can best be answered by directly saying should this defence apply without using the language of unjust enrichment at all ?

I should perhaps close by noting that although the very language I have used to ask these questions may inflame some, I have only asked questions and have hopefully said nothing at all !