Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Steve Hedley |
| Date: |
Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:04:48 +0100 |
| Re: |
The "solitary beacon" in Blake |
It appears
to be Lord Nicholls who missed something.
Further, while it isn't fair to say he missed the point
that the case doesn't involve a claim for an account of profits, he can't
be said to have placed very much stress on it.
None of which would matter very much if there were any
other case support for his position. But he doesn't find any.
Duncan Sheehan writes:
He doesn't just take us on a tour of the cases
and then lay down a rule that contradicts them. It seems to me, though, that that is precisely what he
does do ...
At 13:50 31/07/00 +0100, Bill Swadling wrote:
Have I missed something? In Blake, Lord Nicholls
placed great store on the decision of Brightman J in Wrotham Park v
Parkside Homes, describing it as shining as a "solitary beacon, showing
that in contract as well as in tort damages are not always narrowly
confined to recoupment of financial loss". But since the claim in that
case was a claim not against the original covenantor but a successor
in title, and was brought not by the original covenantee but a successor
in title, it was clearly anything but a claim for breach of contract.
Steve Hedley
================================================ telephone and answering machine : (01223) 334931 Christ's College Cambridge CB2 3BU
FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
messages : (01223) 334900
fax : (01223) 334967
=================================================
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
