Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Joshua Getzler |
| Date: |
Sun, 30 Jul 2000 16:24:37 +0100 |
| Re: |
Blake - Why? |
On
AG
v Blake:
The problem may lie with remedialism (restitutionary
damages, account of profits, whatever language one prefers) being used
backwards to create what is in effect a new category of contractual relationship.
This category lies between fiduciary and confidential relationships on
the one hand, and arms-length contracts on the other. Dare we call these
'good faith contracts' and then get to work defining their indicia? The
new Blake case makes a start, but maybe a focus on the initial qualities
of the relationship rather than the qualities of the breach or the enrichment
would be a better place to start. This is hardly an original thought yet
it still seems anathema to most English common lawyers. One can speculate
as to why the more rational and elegant doctrinal route cannot be taken.
Joshua Getzler
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
