Restitution
front page

What's new?

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Subscribers to the list may find the case of Vedatech v. Crystal Decisions ([2000] EWHC 818 (Ch)) to be of interest. This is a decision of Jacobs J., sitting in the Chancery Division of the English High Court, concerning work done under a contract which failed to materialise.

The defendants were computer software developers. They wanted to sell one of their products in Japan. The claimants offered to assist them in this enterprise. They began work for the defendants, and were successful. They introduced the product to several Japanese companies, at great expense to themselves and to the great profit of the defendants. While there were some negotiations as to the terms of remuneration, no contract was ever concluded.

Jacobs J. held that the defendants were liable to the claimants in unjust enrichment. After quoting Goff and Jones, he said (at paras 68-9):

"One is not looking for an implied contract, an implied promise to pay. That is an older view of the principle - really a legal fiction. One is looking for the three italicised elements in the quotation from Goff and Jones, benefit, at the plaintiff's expense, and unjust.

"All three elements are undoubtedly present in this case. [The claimants] undertook work for the benefit of [the defendant]. [The defendant] got the benefit of that work and it would be unjust for it to have it for nothing."

The most difficult issue in this case is the quantification of the defendant's enrichment. There is to be another trial on that issue, if it comes to that.

The judgment is available at:

http://www2.bailii.org/~jury/cases/EW/EWHC_Ch_2002_818.html

Paul Mac Mahon.