Archer: the classification of restitution claims (Gordon Goldberg, 26 Nov 1999)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Gordon Goldberg
Date:	Fri, 26 Nov 1999 10:22:13
Re:	Archer: the classification of restitution claims

I should be grateful for Matthew Scully's kindness, if he would explain why the French use of "cause" and the English use of "consideration", to designate a judgment as the "juristic basis" of an obligation, are both to be distinguished from their "contractual homonyms". Why, when used in a contractual context, are they not the same words, rather than homonyms?

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.