![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
I
am a little surprised that the same Judge's decision in BP -v- Hunt did
not make the top 5. As for 1-4, A-G
-v- Blake would, for me, probably edge out Surrey CC and my selection
from the Westdeutsche
case would be Hobhouse J's judgment at first instance. Kleinwort
Benson -v- Lincoln is another obvious choice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerard McMeel I should , of course, have mentioned, the decision
of Robert Goff J in British Steel v Cleveland Bridge [1984] 1 All ER
504 (pre-contractual liability based on benefits received). What is the report for this Canadian case? Gerard McMeel On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:32:09 -0400 Mitchell McInnes
wrote:
Although (or perhaps because) the decision does not
expressly discuss unjust enrichment, Bowlay Logging v Domtar, which
is a staple of Canadian casebooks on contracts, provides a very good
introduction to the intersection. Students can be primed in first
year for the possibility that unjust enrichment may provide an alternative
source of relief where a contractual claim fails. Mitchell McInnes ---------------------- ************************************************** For further information about Clifford Chance please
see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com
or refer to any Clifford Chance office.
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |