![]() |
RDG
online Restitution Discussion Group Archives |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||||
|
Fortunately,
English Law has not followed Lord Denning's system of palm tree justice.
We as lawyers are not ultimate arbiters of what is good and what is bad,
what is moral and what is immoral. The sly opportunist who commits perfectly
legal acts to make a "fast buck" should not suffer the condemnation of the
law, simply because he has taken advantage of another's silliness. The law
steps in to protect those who need its protection, through consumer protection
legislation and the doctrine of undue influence for example. Outside of
this, as the Romans would have it, vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt:
the law does not protect the foolish. When Hoover offered a free transatlantic
return flight for every £100 vacuum cleaner purchased, the vigilant consumers
made them suffer financially for their foolishness and no-one would begrudge
them this by requiring them to make restitution of their plane tickets.
Why should we have any less praise for the cunning of ET, who spotted a
foolish pricing procedure and decided to make the most of it? Why is FT
so deserving of sympathy for having been so opportunistically duped? Let
us not talk about right and wrong. Let us focus on what is legal and what
is illegal.
Matthew Scully
Clifford Chance For further information about Clifford Chance please
see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com
or refer to any Clifford Chance office. <== Previous message Back to index Next message ==> |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
» » » » » |
|
![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |