Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Perhaps the point re benefit in this case, and others like it, is that such benefit is unnecessary in order to establish the claim (in restitution or otherwise). It appears from the facts to be a pretty standard example of a "precontractual" arrangement amounting to an express or implied "minor" agreement by the defendant to bear the risk of any expenses incurred by the plaintiff (on a reasonable assumption of a "main" contract being entered), should such main contract not come about. The fact that there was some encouragement by Racal of such considerable expenditure would go a long way to supporting such an assumption of liability on Racal's part. It should surely be irrelevant then, given the implied agreement to pay for any such expenses, whether such expenses are of benefit to Racal.

Joachim Dietrich
Faculty of Law
Australian National University
Canberra, ACT AUSTRALIA
61 2 62494654