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 am following up Nick Hopkins's question and Ed Brewer's helpful response about US law.

Knowing no more about the evidence than Nick summarizes, particularly about the source of the consideration, a US court's form of relief might well be a resulting trust. A purchase money resulting trust if the plaintiff's money were used, an "intent-enforcing" resulting trust if the evidence showed that the parties "intended" joint ownership. As presented, a conscious breach of fiduciary duty would support "disgorgement" of defendant's profits, without detailed inquiry into plaintiff's losses. But weren't part of defendant's gains from the transaction diverted from plaintiff?

Many US courts conflate resulting trusts with constructive trusts leaving the latter as an all-purpose form of equitable restitution with no more "injury" to doctrinal coherence than the average restitution decision.

Doug Rendleman