Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Jason Neyers |
| Date: |
Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:15:39 -0500 |
| Re: |
2 cases |
Lionel Smith wrote:
No one has ever accepted change of
position to either of those, to my knowledge, although for some defendants
at least, detinue builds it in, because it is a defence that you no
longer have the thing, so long as your no longer having it is excusable
in some way. I think "no one" is too strong since I remember David
Stevens making the argument that COP should apply in D. Stevens, “Restitution,
Property, And the Cause of Action in Unjust Enrichment: Getting By with
Fewer Things” (1989) 39 U.T.L.J. 258, (1989) 39 U.T.L.J. 325, an argument
that I found somewhat persuasive.
Cheers,
--
Jason Neyers
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
