Did it really? Or was it just the perverse consequences emanating from their Lordships' misunderstanding of the notion of quasi-contract? Good classification and affixing appropriate labels are not the same thing. Whether we call a particular branch of the law quasi-contract or restitution is one thing, what cases we group under the chosen heading is another. My point was that, while the direct consequences may be purely academic (and in many cases I concede that they will not), the indirect consequences of the specific choices of rules we make in implementing a coherent legal system justify the academic exercise of classification. Assuming that there is no DIRECT practical consequence in this case (because setting aside the judgment surely constitutes a total failure of consideration and, well, let us assume Lord Archer is in bad faith), Ben mentioned a hypothetical case where the defendant might be in good faith. To know whether or not such a defendant would be entitled to CoP is an important INDIRECT practical consequence of a debate which, in the absence of DIRECT practical consequences, some would prefer to label futile.

Matthew Scully.
Oxford Institute of Legal Practice.