Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Thanks to Steve Hedley for making this decision available.

Is the following perhaps some explanation for the benefit and Planche v Colburn mysteries? Or have I overlooked something? Quote from the judgment:

http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/restitution/archive/englcases/easat.htm

"The Quantum Merit Claim

55. This was put simply by Mr Dennys QC as being an archetypal case of services having been provided under an unenforceable contract, and he referred me to William Lacey (Hounslow) Ltd v. Davis [1957] 1 WLR 932, British Steel Corporation v. Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Co Ltd [1984] 1 AER 504, Craven Ellis v. Canons Ltd [1936] 2 KB 403, Way v. Latilla [1937] 3 AER 759 and the discussion of those authorities in Goff and Jones, Law of Restitution, 5th edition, Chapter 23. The cost of the services provided by the claimant to the defendant (inclusive of the cost of manufacturing the space model) was agreed to have been £113,138. The claimant elected to claim this sum under this heading rather than seeking to value the benefit to the defendant of the services and claiming that value. It was not disputed by the defendant that it had obtained a benefit as a result of the services."

Gerhard Dannemann

--
Dr. Gerhard Dannemann
Erich Brost University Lecturer in German Civil and Commercial Law
University of Oxford

Tel 01865 2 81613 Fax 81611, or:
Tel/Fax +49 (0)89 2899 6695

http://iuscomp.org