Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
James Watthey |
| Date: |
Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:20:25 |
| Re: |
Barnet v Anandh |
Apologies for that annoying "recall" email. Lionel has
now explained to me what I did wrong, so hopefully this will now get through
...
Commercially speaking, this is not really a "piddling
mistake", is it? Taking Andrew's points in turn:
1. In both this case and in the unqualified lawyer example,
the customer is not only getting an inferior service giving rise to a
set-off (more important in practice than a mere counterclaim: see e.g
CPR Pt 24.2 and the notes thereto) but something fundamentally different
to that bargained for.
Andrew's example as he explains it would also be a breach
of the solicitor's conduct rules and, by the sound of it, could involve
the firm rendering fraudulent bills; a claim in UE would therefore be
the least of the responsible Partner's worries! Can anyone think of a
logical reason why the client, who engaged, bargained for and was charged
for the services of a solicitor but given the services of a tea-boy, should
not get his money back subject to counter-restitution?
2. How could the Defendant possibly claim to have changed
his position in good faith?
James
James Watthey
Tel 020 7691 3700 Commercial team website www.hardwickecivil.co.uk/cc
My website www.hardwickecivil.co.uk/members/jww.htm
Hardwicke Building
Fax 020 7691 3701
New Square
Lincoln's Inn
London WC2A 3SB
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
