Well, probably. I suspect that it is merely the case that the parties and the judges did not think very clearly amount the matter and merely felt that there was or must have been *some* obligation, without being at all sure what it was. [Of course, I could be committing all sorts of calumny here, as, like Andrew Tettenborn, I have had the benefit only of Lionel's summary]. But if this is so, then, as usual, it is left to subsequent readers to try to fill in the gaps. As to the obligation which must be found to fill in the gaps, certainly, there is an obligation in unjust enrichment to pay for the usage of the truck if and when it is returned (this is merely an updated example of Lord Mansfield's famous horse example in Hambly v Trott), and I presume that the hire-fee amount payable for the use of the truck would take depreciation, wear and tear and so on, into account.

Eoin.

EOIN O'DELL BCL(NUI) BCL(Oxon)
Editor, Dublin University Law Journal.
Barrister, Lecturer in Law, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.
(353/0 1) 608 1178 (w) 677 0449 (fx); (353/0 86) 286 0739 (m)
(All opinions are personal. No legal responsibility whatsoever is accepted.)