Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

I may be a pedant but in Alex's case the coins are clearly owned, in the technical sense which will support a conviction for theft and which generates a right to immediate possession which will support liability in the tort of conversion. Call me old fashioned (Craig Rotherham, where are you?) but it would seem to me that this ownership concept is not available to ET. Hence unjust enrichment steps up to the plate (wow I really am back in North America). Whether it gets a base hit or strikes out is a more difficult question.

Lionel

At 10:22 AM 11/7/00 -0500, you wrote:

:

Andrew Tettenborn wrote:

.....

FG discovered that ET cards allowed calls to premium rate lines at non-premium rates, bought ET cards galore and dialled its own premium number nonstop. They then sat back and collected the rake-off, which was much more thn the calls had cost them to dial. The scam raked in over £1m before it was spotted & stopped.

if A owns a coin-loaded machine with a defective coin-return switch, upon discovery of which B milks the machine, is the matter within the particular expertise of this group or more appropriate for elementary tort analysis and the stern processes of the criminal law??